It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
It would be interesting to get his account of this -
You do get a notable jump in GDP per capita, after the Black Death, but then, nothing much until towards the end of the 17th century.
Hmmm… the mad increases of the 20th cent make it hard to see, but
Or as a log graph (did we learn nothing during The Sickness?)
Looks like breaks in trend in late 1600s, 1800 or so and 1925.
I studied Seventeenth Century history at A Level, and it always felt like an extraordinary period: it started out with Elizabeth I still on the throne, and ended a (broadly) constitutional monarchy with a modern financial system.
There's a brilliant Great Courses on Amazon on this period with Professor Robert Bucholz, a real Anglophile: England 1485 to 1714.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes, the comparisons to Section 28 are clear and unambiguous.
I'm actually happy that the court has ruled. Men. Women. Lets move on from pointless rows about definitions and pass laws which actually work.
The one which makes me giggle hardest are the women gleefully posting that "men will be removed" from toilets and changing rooms. Which suggests enforcement. Mrs RP said "what, are they proposing the pants police to check admission?" - exactly.
Yes and it's a stupid thing to say anyway because most places (including my work) that institute gender neutral toilets do so by creating separate individual cubicles.
And this is the way through this towards inclusivity which doesn't threaten women's safety and dignity. I know many women who hate open changing facilities. Go to cubicles and what does it matter what is between your legs. On the safety front we know that men already have access to female safe spaces without needing to pretend to be a woman - barge in, assault, rape, murder. So the "threat" from trans women who actually are men pretending is an edge case at best and a massive distraction from the real threat to women - men.
As a bisexual man imprisoned in my formative years by the abusive terms used to describe gay men, I look in horror at some of the language being used. Yes, I absolutely do think there is a difference between me sticking on a frock and paying £9 for a certificate vs people I know who have genuine body dysmorphia. But again, edge cases.
I'm a bloke, so I'm not going to try and mansplain. But defence for women against this perceived threat risks pushing them down the Gilead route that women are having to flee in America. The pants police guarding female spaces won't be satisfied, they'll be embarrassing and humiliating women who don't dress how they think women should dress and aren't anatomically shaped as they think women should be shaped and whose hair looks manly etc etc etc.
The cynic in me expects this will just see a spike in demand !
I'd not known there was a dark chocolate Toblerone and my reaction to reading about its demise was to wonder what it's like. (Not interested in ordinary Toblerone.)
Same here. Dark Toblerone is leaving before I had a chance to say hello. Feel sad.
You’re not missing much. It’s probably worse than the milk version (which is actually ok if all you want is a hit of mild chocolate sweetness - but the nougat gets in your teeth)
I’m eating 85% cacao Lindt right now. Pretends to be posh chocolate but it’s too bitter and lacks the crucial sensuality
The best mass produced chocolate you can get most places is Ritter dark milk with hazelnuts
85 is a bit too much. In the 70s is (for me) plenty strong enough for very good chocolate.
Yes I agree. But supplies were limited in my Almaty supermarket and I fancied posh chocolate with my Saperavi wine - my minibar only has TwiX. The chocolate not the social medium
I should’ve done for the Ritter. My regular
I've tried a fair bit of chocolate one way or another, and the best one I think I've tried (as unadulterated chocolate) is this one:
Once again highlighting the male v female disparity .
In terms of normal polling Mainstream has shown an increase in support for the Conservatives who lead 43 to 41.
Although this pollster in the last week has tended to show the best Conservative figures .
The problem for them is their votes are much less efficient .
“In the 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 seats - 47% of the total available - with just 32.6% of the vote. The Conservatives received 33.7% of the vote but only won 119 seats, just 35% of the total.”
“If I die, I want a loud death,” Hassouna wrote on social media. “I don’t want to be just breaking news, or a number in a group, I want a death that the world will hear, an impact that will remain through time, and a timeless image that cannot be buried by time or place.”
On Wednesday, just days before her wedding, 25-year-old Hassouna was killed in an Israeli airstrike that hit her home in northern Gaza. Ten members of her family, including her pregnant sister, were also killed.
The Israeli military said it had been a targeted strike on a Hamas member involved in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians. .
They offer no evidence for that assertion, one they make pretty well automatically - as they did with the recent murders of the medical workers, of course.
Another appalling slaughter conducted by the genocidal maniacs . And the west just isn’t interested anymore .
Throughout my childhood and early adult life I had enormous admiration for the plucky Israelis surrounded by a sea of enemies but so effective, so efficient, so brave. Some of this came from the novels of Leon Uris, some from the Six Day war and the raid on Entebbe and a lot, of course, from the terrible events of the Second World War. October 7th reignited some of that but I am increasingly appalled at what they have become.
The worst days of apartheid were relatively benign compared to this. We like to pretend, because they are a democracy surrounded by tyrants, that we have common values and beliefs. We simply don't. Under admittedly terrible stress a democracy has become evil and we need to call it out as such.
To elide another debate on here, being a democracy of greater or lesser purity is no guarantee of virtue. It’s pretty clear that most Israelis support the continuing actions of the IDF in Gaza and Lebanon and the West Bank and in their prisons (I assume the pathetic rote denials and excuses given out by the IDF and Netanyahu are for foreign consumption). I also have a horrible feeling if there were genuine free elections in Russia that Putin would still win.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes, the comparisons to Section 28 are clear and unambiguous.
I'm actually happy that the court has ruled. Men. Women. Lets move on from pointless rows about definitions and pass laws which actually work.
The one which makes me giggle hardest are the women gleefully posting that "men will be removed" from toilets and changing rooms. Which suggests enforcement. Mrs RP said "what, are they proposing the pants police to check admission?" - exactly.
It's kind of the opposite of Section 28 but with the same effect. Section 28 was a horrible piece of legislation driven by a toxic public discourse. Here a reasonable legal judgement is in danger of creating a toxic public discourse.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
It would be interesting to get his account of this -
You do get a notable jump in GDP per capita, after the Black Death, but then, nothing much until towards the end of the 17th century.
It would be better if it was log scale.
There you go…
That's great. You can see how the Industrial Revolution let rip but the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars stalled it, and the unpleasant impact of the First and Second World Wars.
US Supreme Court wades in with an emergency injunction to prevent Venezualans held in Texas from being sent to El Salvador. Thomas and Alito dissent, natch.
So - will Trump defy the SC for a full-on constutional crisis?
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
The argument for reparations would not be based on whether we profited from British colonies, but whether those colonies suffered because of British rule.
Consider a more recent example: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That invasion has been economically deleterious for Russia. By your logic, Russia therefore cannot owe Ukraine reparations. However, that’s because you don’t understand reparations. Russian reparations are due because of the damage Russia has done to Ukraine.
Whether reparations make sense for much more historically distant events is the more relevant debate.
You only pay reparations if you are comprehensively defeated in war.
Isn't that more a matter of practical politics (it being difficult to force a country to pay up unless you have just stomped on them militarily) rather than either the definition of the word or a moral argument?
Apparently Italy agreed in 2008 to pay $5bn to Libya in compensation for its colonial activities there, which would seem to be a counterexample to your statement. (Though it's unclear how much of the money ever actually got transferred, given subsequent regime change etc in Libya.)
What’s the point of dark chocolate ? Only pretentious people who look down on others eat dark chocolate.
It’s like Masterchef when they serve up an almost blue steak and the guest judges go to their stock reply .
In effect it might be too rare for the plebs but we’re above all that and are happy to eat it !
Good riddance to dark Toblerone !
Gently, imo that's actually not fair comment .
I have dark chocolate for 2 reasons: 1 - it is better tasting imo, 2 - it has less sugar.
Numbers:
Morrisons 85% cocao dark chocolate: Carb 23.4%, of which sugars 13.8% . Morrisons 52% cocao dark chocolate: Carb 51.3%, of which sugars 47.7% . Morrisons milk chocolate: Carb 56.4%, of which sugars 53.3% .
"Diabetic" chocolate is stuffed with things like maltitot and splenda or similar. Which might be fine, but it it is to chocolate what a sausage-free sausage is to a sausage. Diabetic products are usually a product of various myths around "They can't eat sugar", which is born of ignorance and 1970s/80s treatment regimens.
For me it also helps that the Designer Outlet 15 minutes away by cycle (but no cycle racks for 4 million visitors per annum) has two chocolate shops, one of which is Lindt.
US Supreme Court wades in with an emergency injunction to prevent Venezualans held in Texas from being sent to El Salvador. Thomas and Alito dissent, natch.
So - will Trump defy the SC for a full-on constutional crisis?
One of the more alarming ways the checks and balances have failed is that an overt criminal like Clarence Thomas continues to serve on the Supreme Court.
As for your question, they already emasculated themselves with the ridiculous immunity ruling.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
I agree. But we have still been in relative economic decline for the last century, and that is now biting. So we haven't 'done well'.
I’d far rather be alive now, than when the UK was indisputably the wealthiest nation on the planet - with a standard of living similar to modern Haiti.
True, but it might have been more fun. The world would have absolutely been your oyster and you could go virtually anywhere and be a colonial administrator, business owner or intrepid adventurer, or something, and plant your flag and really annoy the French. All whilst exceedingly well dressed.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
I agree. But we have still been in relative economic decline for the last century, and that is now biting. So we haven't 'done well'.
I’d far rather be alive now, than when the UK was indisputably the wealthiest nation on the planet - with a standard of living similar to modern Haiti.
True, but it might have been more fun. The world would have absolutely been your oyster and you could go virtually anywhere and be a colonial administrator, business owner or intrepid adventurer, or something, and plant your flag and really annoy the French. All whilst exceedingly well dressed.
Fun.
The risk would have been healthcare, of course.
Or being born an illiterate peasant.
Edit: of course everyone is born illiterate, rather being born to illiterate peasants.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
I agree. But we have still been in relative economic decline for the last century, and that is now biting. So we haven't 'done well'.
I’d far rather be alive now, than when the UK was indisputably the wealthiest nation on the planet - with a standard of living similar to modern Haiti.
True, but it might have been more fun. The world would have absolutely been your oyster and you could go virtually anywhere and be a colonial administrator, business owner or intrepid adventurer, or something, and plant your flag and really annoy the French. All whilst exceedingly well dressed.
Fun.
The risk would have been healthcare, of course.
From a middle-class perspective, certainly.
I fear the opportunities for the lower classes were much more stark.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
I agree. But we have still been in relative economic decline for the last century, and that is now biting. So we haven't 'done well'.
I’d far rather be alive now, than when the UK was indisputably the wealthiest nation on the planet - with a standard of living similar to modern Haiti.
True, but it might have been more fun. The world would have absolutely been your oyster and you could go virtually anywhere and be a colonial administrator, business owner or intrepid adventurer, or something, and plant your flag and really annoy the French. All whilst exceedingly well dressed.
Fun.
The risk would have been healthcare, of course.
Or being born an illiterate peasant.
Yes, the Empire was always about social class, including the upward mobility achieved by putting another social class below you at the point of a gun.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that in order for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to convince President Trump to put a pause on tariffs, he had to wait until Peter Navarro was in another meeting.
He and Howard Lutnick then rushed to the Oval Office, convinced Trump, and waited until he posted a Truth Social post announcing the news.
"Howard Nutlick" (the pun) finally made the Rest is Politics US yesterday (that is Katty Kay and Scaramouche), who are gradually broadening out their content wrt Mr Trump to pick up the more fundamental questions.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
But there may be circumstances where it is not proportionate to exclude the gender reassigned, nor a legitimate aim. To take sports for example, rugby Yes, but pistol shooting?
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
Also I see that @Stereodog does not understand the concept of safeguarding. Once again for the hard of understanding: it is based on categories. All men have the potential to be a risk to women. That is why all decent societies have ensured that where that risk is greatest, all men are kept out. How an individual man behaves is irrelevant.
And he - like so many - also forgets women's need for privacy and dignity.
It is extraordinary to see the tantrums from men on realising that women are a class of humans with their own clearly defined legal rights and boundaries. As well as the shockingly poor analysis of the judgment by journalists.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes, the comparisons to Section 28 are clear and unambiguous.
I'm actually happy that the court has ruled. Men. Women. Lets move on from pointless rows about definitions and pass laws which actually work.
The one which makes me giggle hardest are the women gleefully posting that "men will be removed" from toilets and changing rooms. Which suggests enforcement. Mrs RP said "what, are they proposing the pants police to check admission?" - exactly.
That would be good, but the early signs are not promising. If this has been a culture war, the vibes are more Versailles Treaty than Marshall Plan.
Which is probably massively the most common response in history, for all we all know that it doesn't bloody work.
The Versailles Treaty actually made sense and worked. The first problem was that its enforcement was stopped. The second problem was that the Allies hadn’t held a victory parade in Berlin….
The basic premise was that Germany would take 10 years (or so) to be ready for war if it broke free of the treaty. This happened by about 1932 (yes, before Hitler came to power)
Despite various secret preparations by the German government, the answer the military planners came up with, was that Germany would be ready for war in 1942.
As it was, Hitler started the war early. The arguments about whether this was because of imminent economic collapse or just playing Risk harder and harder go on.
The result of going early was that the German surface navy was easily defeated. The lack of depth in rearmament in Germany in a number of areas cost as well - mechanisation of the army was way behind schedule.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
But there may be circumstances where it is not proportionate to exclude the gender reassigned, nor a legitimate aim. To take sports for example, rugby Yes, but pistol shooting?
The relevant pc is not gender reassignment but sex. Is there a male advantage for men in pistol shooting? Arm length for instance? Or height? And if there is then the relevant schedules in the Equality Act relating to sport are what you look at.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
I agree. But we have still been in relative economic decline for the last century, and that is now biting. So we haven't 'done well'.
I’d far rather be alive now, than when the UK was indisputably the wealthiest nation on the planet - with a standard of living similar to modern Haiti.
True, but it might have been more fun. The world would have absolutely been your oyster and you could go virtually anywhere and be a colonial administrator, business owner or intrepid adventurer, or something, and plant your flag and really annoy the French. All whilst exceedingly well dressed.
Fun.
The risk would have been healthcare, of course.
From a middle-class perspective, certainly.
I fear the opportunities for the lower classes were much more stark.
Emigrate or join the army/navy, or do a tough manufacturing job here.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
But there may be circumstances where it is not proportionate to exclude the gender reassigned, nor a legitimate aim. To take sports for example, rugby Yes, but pistol shooting?
The relevant pc is not gender reassignment but sex. Is there a male advantage for men in pistol shooting? Arm length for instance? Or height? And if there is then the relevant schedules in the Equality Act relating to sport are what you look at.
I really do not have the time to teach people on here how the Equality Act works. There is a huge amount of misinformation deliberately spread about it by activists, notably Stonewall, which should be sued by all those organisations who paid it good money to "go beyond the law" ie breaking it (more fools them).
It’s got everything. The pathos of the young officers dancing at the Duchess of Richmond’s ball, most of whom will be dead in 48 hours. The ball itself being interrupted by the news of Napoleon driving a wedge between the two armies. The crawling terror of watching columns of French infantry relentlessly advancing, to the sound of drums. The charge of the Union Brigade. The wonderful shots of Ney’s cavalry fruitlessly trying to break squares of infantry. The horror of being in those squares as French artillery tearing them apart. The struggle for Hougomont. The inspired lunacy of Blucher. And finally, the Imperial Guard almost, but not quite, breaking through.
The battle itself was horrific.
I read once its casualties rivalled the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
It’s got everything. The pathos of the young officers dancing at the Duchess of Richmond’s ball, most of whom will be dead in 48 hours. The ball itself being interrupted by the news of Napoleon driving a wedge between the two armies. The crawling terror of watching columns of French infantry relentlessly advancing, to the sound of drums. The charge of the Union Brigade. The wonderful shots of Ney’s cavalry fruitlessly trying to break squares of infantry. The horror of being in those squares as French artillery tearing them apart. The struggle for Hougomont. The inspired lunacy of Blucher. And finally, the Imperial Guard almost, but not quite, breaking through.
The battle itself was horrific.
I read once its casualties rivalled the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
But there may be circumstances where it is not proportionate to exclude the gender reassigned, nor a legitimate aim. To take sports for example, rugby Yes, but pistol shooting?
The relevant pc is not gender reassignment but sex. Is there a male advantage for men in pistol shooting? Arm length for instance? Or height? And if there is then the relevant schedules in the Equality Act relating to sport are what you look at.
So, if there is no advantage from height or arm length then it should be a sport not divided by sex categories, or one where sex categories exist but Trans-women can compete?
It all hinges on proportionate means and legitimate aim.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
But there may be circumstances where it is not proportionate to exclude the gender reassigned, nor a legitimate aim. To take sports for example, rugby Yes, but pistol shooting?
The relevant pc is not gender reassignment but sex. Is there a male advantage for men in pistol shooting? Arm length for instance? Or height? And if there is then the relevant schedules in the Equality Act relating to sport are what you look at.
So, if there is no advantage from height or arm length then it should be a sport not divided by sex categories, or one where sex categories exist but Trans-women can compete?
It all hinges on proportionate means and legitimate aim.
No it does not. That is the exception for single sex spaces. S.195 relates to sport. Different factors apply.
"A person does not contravene this Act, so far as relating to sex, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of another as a competitor in a gender-affected activity.
(2)A person does not contravene section 29, 33, 34 or 35, so far as relating to gender reassignment, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of a transsexual person as a competitor in a gender-affected activity if it is necessary to do so to secure in relation to the activity—
(a)fair competition, or
(b)the safety of competitors.
(3)A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.
(4)In considering whether a sport, game or other activity is gender-affected in relation to children, it is appropriate to take account of the age and stage of development of children who are likely to be competitors."
I am going to start charging for legal advice .....
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
But there may be circumstances where it is not proportionate to exclude the gender reassigned, nor a legitimate aim. To take sports for example, rugby Yes, but pistol shooting?
The relevant pc is not gender reassignment but sex. Is there a male advantage for men in pistol shooting? Arm length for instance? Or height? And if there is then the relevant schedules in the Equality Act relating to sport are what you look at.
So, if there is no advantage from height or arm length then it should be a sport not divided by sex categories, or one where sex categories exist but Trans-women can compete?
It all hinges on proportionate means and legitimate aim.
No it does not. That is the exception for single sex spaces. S.195 relates to sport. Different factors apply.
"A person does not contravene this Act, so far as relating to sex, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of another as a competitor in a gender-affected activity.
(2)A person does not contravene section 29, 33, 34 or 35, so far as relating to gender reassignment, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of a transsexual person as a competitor in a gender-affected activity if it is necessary to do so to secure in relation to the activity—
(a)fair competition, or
(b)the safety of competitors.
(3)A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.
(4)In considering whether a sport, game or other activity is gender-affected in relation to children, it is appropriate to take account of the age and stage of development of children who are likely to be competitors."
I am going to start charging for legal advice .....
None of that means that trans-athletes should be excluded where there is no unfair advantage, safety issue or physical advantage.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
The other thing is that we had natural resources - particularly lots of good quality, relatively easily mined, coal - which turbo-charged the industrial revolution. If you take the view (and it's certainly arguable) that economic growth is mostly driven by cheap energy, post the invention of the steam engine our coal deposits probably had more to do with making us "top nation" in the Victorian era than anything else.
I'd argue that the same thesis holds true today, and one of the biggest reasons we've virtually no economic growth is that we've allowed energy (particularly electricity) to become very expensive.
I think that's a good argument for why the industrial revolution started in the UK. I think it's a less good argument for why certain places are rich.
Japan, for example, had heinously expensive energy - often 2-3x that of Western Europe and even worse relative to the US - in the post WW2 period... and yet built what was comfortably the second richest place on the planet, before they got fucked by demographics.
ISTM that the main metric that massively improved for Japan relative to other countries from 1950 until about 1990 was the energy intensity of GDP. By 1990 it was up with the top half of the pack.
That is a combination of technical improvement, and efficiency.
I'd say that by going back to 1970s.80s drill baby drill, and closing down greener energy, Mr Trump is putting another captive bullet into the USA's future.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
But there may be circumstances where it is not proportionate to exclude the gender reassigned, nor a legitimate aim. To take sports for example, rugby Yes, but pistol shooting?
The relevant pc is not gender reassignment but sex. Is there a male advantage for men in pistol shooting? Arm length for instance? Or height? And if there is then the relevant schedules in the Equality Act relating to sport are what you look at.
So, if there is no advantage from height or arm length then it should be a sport not divided by sex categories, or one where sex categories exist but Trans-women can compete?
It all hinges on proportionate means and legitimate aim.
No it does not. That is the exception for single sex spaces. S.195 relates to sport. Different factors apply.
"A person does not contravene this Act, so far as relating to sex, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of another as a competitor in a gender-affected activity.
(2)A person does not contravene section 29, 33, 34 or 35, so far as relating to gender reassignment, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of a transsexual person as a competitor in a gender-affected activity if it is necessary to do so to secure in relation to the activity—
(a)fair competition, or
(b)the safety of competitors.
(3)A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.
(4)In considering whether a sport, game or other activity is gender-affected in relation to children, it is appropriate to take account of the age and stage of development of children who are likely to be competitors."
I am going to start charging for legal advice .....
None of that means that trans-athletes should be excluded where there is no unfair advantage, safety issue or physical advantage.
If there are such sports.
But the narrow point I was making is that you were wrong to think the legitimate purpose/proportionate means was the correct analysis because, I don't mean to be rude, you are not a lawyer and do not understand how the Act works, what the cases say etc.
And there has been far too much commentary and advice given by people who, frankly, do not know what they are talking about - including a lot of lobby groups who have deliberately misinterpreted or mischaracterised the position.
Even Lord Sumption got it wrong when on the radio yesterday when he referred to the Equalities Act as an obscure piece of legislation. Well indeed. It is obscure. So obscure that it does not exist. The Equality Act OTOH is a major piece of legislation consolidating equality and discrimination law since the 1970's.
Sumption has never practised in this area of law, has never given judgments in it and was wrong in what he said about the EA and the SC judgment yesterday. He has, I'm afraid, allowed being the "go to" legal bod for the media to go to his head and has made a fool of himself.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
But there may be circumstances where it is not proportionate to exclude the gender reassigned, nor a legitimate aim. To take sports for example, rugby Yes, but pistol shooting?
The relevant pc is not gender reassignment but sex. Is there a male advantage for men in pistol shooting? Arm length for instance? Or height? And if there is then the relevant schedules in the Equality Act relating to sport are what you look at.
So, if there is no advantage from height or arm length then it should be a sport not divided by sex categories, or one where sex categories exist but Trans-women can compete?
It all hinges on proportionate means and legitimate aim.
No it does not. That is the exception for single sex spaces. S.195 relates to sport. Different factors apply.
"A person does not contravene this Act, so far as relating to sex, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of another as a competitor in a gender-affected activity.
(2)A person does not contravene section 29, 33, 34 or 35, so far as relating to gender reassignment, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of a transsexual person as a competitor in a gender-affected activity if it is necessary to do so to secure in relation to the activity—
(a)fair competition, or
(b)the safety of competitors.
(3)A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.
(4)In considering whether a sport, game or other activity is gender-affected in relation to children, it is appropriate to take account of the age and stage of development of children who are likely to be competitors."
I am going to start charging for legal advice .....
None of that means that trans-athletes should be excluded where there is no unfair advantage, safety issue or physical advantage.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
But there may be circumstances where it is not proportionate to exclude the gender reassigned, nor a legitimate aim. To take sports for example, rugby Yes, but pistol shooting?
The relevant pc is not gender reassignment but sex. Is there a male advantage for men in pistol shooting? Arm length for instance? Or height? And if there is then the relevant schedules in the Equality Act relating to sport are what you look at.
So, if there is no advantage from height or arm length then it should be a sport not divided by sex categories, or one where sex categories exist but Trans-women can compete?
It all hinges on proportionate means and legitimate aim.
No it does not. That is the exception for single sex spaces. S.195 relates to sport. Different factors apply.
"A person does not contravene this Act, so far as relating to sex, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of another as a competitor in a gender-affected activity.
(2)A person does not contravene section 29, 33, 34 or 35, so far as relating to gender reassignment, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of a transsexual person as a competitor in a gender-affected activity if it is necessary to do so to secure in relation to the activity—
(a)fair competition, or
(b)the safety of competitors.
(3)A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.
(4)In considering whether a sport, game or other activity is gender-affected in relation to children, it is appropriate to take account of the age and stage of development of children who are likely to be competitors."
I am going to start charging for legal advice .....
None of that means that trans-athletes should be excluded where there is no unfair advantage, safety issue or physical advantage.
Trans athletes are not "excluded" - they are just asked to compete in the category for their sex. If they don't want to do that, they can compete in an "Open" category, it's been tried:
No entries were received for the new open-category races at the Swimming World Cup event in Berlin, World Aquatics says.
The world governing body introduced an open category after voting last year to stop transgender women from competing in women's elite races.
What’s the point of dark chocolate ? Only pretentious people who look down on others eat dark chocolate.
It’s like Masterchef when they serve up an almost blue steak and the guest judges go to their stock reply .
In effect it might be too rare for the plebs but we’re above all that and are happy to eat it !
Good riddance to dark Toblerone !
what claptrap, nothing to beat good 70% real chocolate, let the plebs eat their vegetable oil and milk
Absolutely - I think 70% is the "sweet spot" if you'll forgive the pun - sharp but not bitter - most of the health benefits with fewer of the downsides (sugar etc).
What’s the point of dark chocolate ? Only pretentious people who look down on others eat dark chocolate.
It’s like Masterchef when they serve up an almost blue steak and the guest judges go to their stock reply .
In effect it might be too rare for the plebs but we’re above all that and are happy to eat it !
Good riddance to dark Toblerone !
what claptrap, nothing to beat good 70% real chocolate, let the plebs eat their vegetable oil and milk
I don’t eat cheap milk chocolate so not sure where that puts me on the pleb scale ! I do actually eat some dark chocolate if it’s part of a dessert but can’t chomp on a whole bar . Only on PB could we be discussing this topic !
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
Where @Cyclefree gets it right is in her final paragraph. Under the Equality Act discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristics (so including both biological sex and gender reassignment) is only legal where it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I am afraid that you have got it wrong. If it is proportionate to exclude men for a legitimate aim, then that is it. All men are excluded. There is no need to do some further exercise to decide whether it is proportionate to exclude trans-identified men. They come within the category of men.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
@Cyclefree, Blair once said that when the pieces shatter it is the politicians job to reorder the kaleidoscope before they settle. IIUC prior to the SC decision, you needed a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim to exclude trans women from a female single sex space. But after the SC decision, you need a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim to *create* a female single sex space, but once achieved cis men and trans women are likewise excluded from it in perpetuity. Or at least that's what's being bandied around in the discourse.
While I'm here, two points * I bring to your attention RochdalePioneers and Leon's insistence on a "your friend Lauren" exception to this rule. RochdalePioneers has a trans female friend called Lauren, and Leon has a trans female friend called Julia. Both insist that their friends should be exempted from the SC decision because reasons. It is this belief that the law does not apply to the upper and upper-middle classes that will be your greatest opponent. * I remind you of my question of what court-enforcable rights are bestowed by a GRC that were not possssed beforehand. You are not obliged to answer it (obvs) but it remains unanswered, apart from an attempt by HYUFD.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
The cynic in me expects this will just see a spike in demand !
I'd not known there was a dark chocolate Toblerone and my reaction to reading about its demise was to wonder what it's like. (Not interested in ordinary Toblerone.)
It’s alright, I’ve had it when people brought it in at work from holiday. White, dark and plain.
Wouldn’t go out of my way to buy it but when it’s free I’ll give it a go.
White Toblerone is genuinely disgusting.
Dark Toblerone is fine.
The demise of WH Smith probably spells the end for Toblerone generally.
No
Toblerone is a supreme example of brilliant branding. You find it everywhere. In every minibar and duty free shop in the world. In every 7/11 in Thailand. In supermarkets in Myanmar and Montevideo - and Almaty
It says in its special shape: here is a bit of European chocolate luxury. A bit of glamorous Europe itself! Even if the reality is, for posher Europeans, a bit disappointing
It is to Europe perhaps what Coca Cola is to the USA
Comments
But there's one poster with some decidedly sinister views on Deltics, so those threads get a bit rowdy.
It all hinges on how that phrase is interpreted. Is exclusion of Trans women to be considered a proportionate means or a legitimate aim? Is the segregation of single sex spaces a proportionate means or a legitimate aim?
I learnt loads.
Trains, less so.
As a bisexual man imprisoned in my formative years by the abusive terms used to describe gay men, I look in horror at some of the language being used. Yes, I absolutely do think there is a difference between me sticking on a frock and paying £9 for a certificate vs people I know who have genuine body dysmorphia. But again, edge cases.
I'm a bloke, so I'm not going to try and mansplain. But defence for women against this perceived threat risks pushing them down the Gilead route that women are having to flee in America. The pants police guarding female spaces won't be satisfied, they'll be embarrassing and humiliating women who don't dress how they think women should dress and aren't anatomically shaped as they think women should be shaped and whose hair looks manly etc etc etc.
Its othering at its worst.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/english-debate-vote-compass-1.7514070
Once again highlighting the male v female disparity .
In terms of normal polling Mainstream has shown an increase in support for the Conservatives who lead 43 to 41.
Although this pollster in the last week has tended to show the best Conservative figures .
The problem for them is their votes are much less efficient .
“In the 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 seats - 47% of the total available - with just 32.6% of the vote. The Conservatives received 33.7% of the vote but only won 119 seats, just 35% of the total.”
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
So - will Trump defy the SC for a full-on constutional crisis?
Apparently Italy agreed in 2008 to pay $5bn to Libya in compensation for its colonial activities there, which would seem to be a counterexample to your statement. (Though it's unclear how much of the money ever actually got transferred, given subsequent regime change etc in Libya.)
I have dark chocolate for 2 reasons: 1 - it is better tasting imo, 2 - it has less sugar.
Numbers:
Morrisons 85% cocao dark chocolate: Carb 23.4%, of which sugars 13.8% .
Morrisons 52% cocao dark chocolate: Carb 51.3%, of which sugars 47.7% .
Morrisons milk chocolate: Carb 56.4%, of which sugars 53.3% .
"Diabetic" chocolate is stuffed with things like maltitot and splenda or similar. Which might be fine, but it it is to chocolate what a sausage-free sausage is to a sausage. Diabetic products are usually a product of various myths around "They can't eat sugar", which is born of ignorance and 1970s/80s treatment regimens.
For me it also helps that the Designer Outlet 15 minutes away by cycle (but no cycle racks for 4 million visitors per annum) has two chocolate shops, one of which is Lindt.
As for your question, they already emasculated themselves with the ridiculous immunity ruling.
This misinformation has been spread but it is wrong.
NEW THREAD
Fun.
The risk would have been healthcare, of course.
Edit: of course everyone is born illiterate, rather being born to illiterate peasants.
I fear the opportunities for the lower classes were much more stark.
And he - like so many - also forgets women's need for privacy and dignity.
It is extraordinary to see the tantrums from men on realising that women are a class of humans with their own clearly defined legal rights and boundaries. As well as the shockingly poor analysis of the judgment by journalists.
The basic premise was that Germany would take 10 years (or so) to be ready for war if it broke free of the treaty. This happened by about 1932 (yes, before Hitler came to power)
Despite various secret preparations by the German government, the answer the military planners came up with, was that Germany would be ready for war in 1942.
As it was, Hitler started the war early. The arguments about whether this was because of imminent economic collapse or just playing Risk harder and harder go on.
The result of going early was that the German surface navy was easily defeated. The lack of depth in rearmament in Germany in a number of areas cost as well - mechanisation of the army was way behind schedule.
But here is an excellent explainer from a very serious, experienced, knowledgeable equalities lawyer - https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/02/legally-this-is-not-a-trans-rights-issue-its-a-sex-rights-issue-a-blog-about-boxes/.
I read once its casualties rivalled the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
It all hinges on proportionate means and legitimate aim.
"A person does not contravene this Act, so far as relating to sex, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of another as a competitor in a gender-affected activity.
(2)A person does not contravene section 29, 33, 34 or 35, so far as relating to gender reassignment, only by doing anything in relation to the participation of a transsexual person as a competitor in a gender-affected activity if it is necessary to do so to secure in relation to the activity—
(a)fair competition, or
(b)the safety of competitors.
(3)A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.
(4)In considering whether a sport, game or other activity is gender-affected in relation to children, it is appropriate to take account of the age and stage of development of children who are likely to be competitors."
I am going to start charging for legal advice .....
That is a combination of technical improvement, and efficiency.
I'd say that by going back to 1970s.80s drill baby drill, and closing down greener energy, Mr Trump is putting another captive bullet into the USA's future.
But the narrow point I was making is that you were wrong to think the legitimate purpose/proportionate means was the correct analysis because, I don't mean to be rude, you are not a lawyer and do not understand how the Act works, what the cases say etc.
And there has been far too much commentary and advice given by people who, frankly, do not know what they are talking about - including a lot of lobby groups who have deliberately misinterpreted or mischaracterised the position.
Even Lord Sumption got it wrong when on the radio yesterday when he referred to the Equalities Act as an obscure piece of legislation. Well indeed. It is obscure. So obscure that it does not exist. The Equality Act OTOH is a major piece of legislation consolidating equality and discrimination law since the 1970's.
Sumption has never practised in this area of law, has never given judgments in it and was wrong in what he said about the EA and the SC judgment yesterday. He has, I'm afraid, allowed being the "go to" legal bod for the media to go to his head and has made a fool of himself.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
https://x.com/Scott_Wortley/status/1913368773442044270
Also the lie that the Supreme Court "refused to hear from trans people"
https://x.com/peter_daly/status/1913250866712191404
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
No entries were received for the new open-category races at the Swimming World Cup event in Berlin, World Aquatics says.
The world governing body introduced an open category after voting last year to stop transgender women from competing in women's elite races.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/66993112
While I'm here, two points
* I bring to your attention RochdalePioneers and Leon's insistence on a "your friend Lauren" exception to this rule. RochdalePioneers has a trans female friend called Lauren, and Leon has a trans female friend called Julia. Both insist that their friends should be exempted from the SC decision because reasons. It is this belief that the law does not apply to the upper and upper-middle classes that will be your greatest opponent.
* I remind you of my question of what court-enforcable rights are bestowed by a GRC that were not possssed beforehand. You are not obliged to answer it (obvs) but it remains unanswered, apart from an attempt by HYUFD.
For anyone wanting something more entertaining to occupy the weekend, Saudi qualifying and the race are on at 6pm (Saturday and Sunday respectively).
Norris looked very much top dog in FP2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qED2_XDD4aI