Appreciate it's early but curious that we don't have a good idea of what has happened here - social media accounts and phone videos would typically show up by now.
Train = isolated capsule. Maybe very few people in the carriage in question? Not sure how busy it would be, today, esp. with the rugger types not yet percolated down that far. So not something into which one can read too much.
Sounds like it is staff that have been attacked. Sadly, this sort of thing has been on the rise.
Appreciate it's early but curious that we don't have a good idea of what has happened here - social media accounts and phone videos would typically show up by now.
Train = isolated capsule. Maybe very few people in the carriage in question? Not sure how busy it would be, today, esp. with the rugger types not yet percolated down that far. So not something into which one can read too much.
Confined space, nowhere to go, essentially no security and not able to get any on until you get to a station. Potentially fairly grim scenario for those involved.
Textiles and weapons. The UK played a similar role in the Napoleonic wars to the USA in WWII. Mass production of weapons played a huge role in driving industrialisation.
To an extent - go to Portsmouth to see the first mass production line, complete with some of the original machines. For making wooden blocks (pulleys) for the Royal Navy.
Arguably, the next big step in mass production (interchangeable parts) was the fallout from the Government giving Charles Babbage the price of a couple of battleships to not build a calculating machine. All the money ended up funding Clement and Whitworth…
The block line designed by Brunel sen. and implemented by Maudslay. Who trained Babbage's workers.
Edit: but wasn't the interchangeable parts stuff also imtroduced by the management at the US Arsenals, for musket/rifle production?
Beaten to it, not just in weapons but overall, by Henry Nock:
the papers explore how Henry Nock was able to produce the remarkable figure of 12,010 interchangeable locks in 1793–95, five years before the production of 10,000 interchangeable locks was achieved in France by Honoré Blanc, who is widely regarded as the first in this field. Significantly, Nock’s work also preceded that of Samuel Bentham, Mark Brunel and Henry Maudslay on the famous machines for making interchangeable components – in wood – for the blocks required for ships’ rigging; the three principals began their work on this in 1799. The present three-part study not only firmly establishes Henry Nock’s leading position in the field of firearm development but also as one of the pioneers of interchangeable manufacture at scale in engineering more widely, both nationally and internationally.
“ Inadvertent mistake” mark 2. Another estate agent, Knight Frank, has told the Mail on Sunday that it too told Rachel Reeves she would need a licence to rent out their home in Dulwich.
She went on to use another agent, Harvey & Wheeler, and later wrote to Starmer saying she hadn’t been aware a licence was needed.
That turned out to be untrue as there were extensive emails between the agent and Mr Reeves. How many agents needed to tell her and how many times did she ignore them? Were the Reeves trying to avoid the £900+ licence fee or as a politician does lying just come to easily?
“ Inadvertent mistake” mark 2. Another estate agent, Knight Frank, has told the Mail on Sunday that it too told Rachel Reeves she would need a licence to rent out their home in Dulwich.
She went on to use another agent, Harvey & Wheeler, and later wrote to Starmer saying she hadn’t been aware a licence was needed.
That turned out to be untrue as there were extensive emails between the agent and Mr Reeves. How many agents needed to tell her and how many times did she ignore them? Were the Reeves trying to avoid the £900+ licence fee or as a politician does lying just come to easily?
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
Textiles and weapons. The UK played a similar role in the Napoleonic wars to the USA in WWII. Mass production of weapons played a huge role in driving industrialisation.
To an extent - go to Portsmouth to see the first mass production line, complete with some of the original machines. For making wooden blocks (pulleys) for the Royal Navy.
Arguably, the next big step in mass production (interchangeable parts) was the fallout from the Government giving Charles Babbage the price of a couple of battleships to not build a calculating machine. All the money ended up funding Clement and Whitworth…
The block line designed by Brunel sen. and implemented by Maudslay. Who trained Babbage's workers.
Edit: but wasn't the interchangeable parts stuff also imtroduced by the management at the US Arsenals, for musket/rifle production?
Beaten to it, not just in weapons but overall, by Henry Nock:
the papers explore how Henry Nock was able to produce the remarkable figure of 12,010 interchangeable locks in 1793–95, five years before the production of 10,000 interchangeable locks was achieved in France by Honoré Blanc, who is widely regarded as the first in this field. Significantly, Nock’s work also preceded that of Samuel Bentham, Mark Brunel and Henry Maudslay on the famous machines for making interchangeable components – in wood – for the blocks required for ships’ rigging; the three principals began their work on this in 1799. The present three-part study not only firmly establishes Henry Nock’s leading position in the field of firearm development but also as one of the pioneers of interchangeable manufacture at scale in engineering more widely, both nationally and internationally.
Thanks! Open access too. Duly bookmarked for later reading.
“ Inadvertent mistake” mark 2. Another estate agent, Knight Frank, has told the Mail on Sunday that it too told Rachel Reeves she would need a licence to rent out their home in Dulwich.
She went on to use another agent, Harvey & Wheeler, and later wrote to Starmer saying she hadn’t been aware a licence was needed.
That turned out to be untrue as there were extensive emails between the agent and Mr Reeves. How many agents needed to tell her and how many times did she ignore them? Were the Reeves trying to avoid the £900+ licence fee or as a politician does lying just come to easily?
Appreciate it's early but curious that we don't have a good idea of what has happened here - social media accounts and phone videos would typically show up by now.
Train = isolated capsule. Maybe very few people in the carriage in question? Not sure how busy it would be, today, esp. with the rugger types not yet percolated down that far. So not something into which one can read too much.
Presumably the perp got on at Peterborough.
The section to Huntingdon is run quite slowly due to the line crossing Holme Fen, so it would have been easier to run up and down the train.
It sounds like there was only one attacker on some social media reports so who the other person arrested was isn't clear. Maybe they weren't in the same carriage.
I fear the current silence will be filled with a lot of noise, so there will have to be a statement soon.
It is quite a task to explain the importance of the SC judgment in legal terms in response to your earlier comments but I will try.
The judgment did not simply clarify what various terms in the Equality Act meant. It also explained how phrases in legislation should be properly interpreted, in particular, the phrasing in SS. 9(1) and 9(3) in the GRA. "For all purposes" in an Act does not mean what non-lawyers assume ie you can do what you want. It does not mean that a man with GRC "for all purposes" is a woman regardless of what other legislation says. "For all purposes" means in short "for all purposes" permitted by law. So you have to look at other legislation and case law and rules of interpretation and so on to understand what it means.
That is exactly what the SC did which is why they came to the decision they did. The interpretation that the activists wanted would indeed have left the law in a mess because it would have been incoherent and inconsistent with other clear legislation and case law. The judgment OTOH makes the law clear. The reason why activists are saying otherwise is because they can no longer mislead about what it means. Hence the whining now about the cost. (This is so much phooey because business did not go round building a load of inclusive spaces; they simply changed the signs on doors and it would take ca 10 mins for the signs to be changed back again.)
The judgment is well worth reading. It is a judgment on the substance but also on statutory interpretation and it is the impact of this latter part which deals with the issues you raise but do not understand, understandably. It completely destroys the arguments made by activists and is more important than many realise because it provides very clear guidelines to how to interpret any other apparent clashes between other statutes and the GRA which may arise in future.
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, “guns-a-blazing,” to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST! https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115476385101120405
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
Bake Off is on Channel 4. President Trump has threatened Nigeria which is near Sudan (although how much sway the Nigerian government has over Boko Haram is not clear, and does the US even give aid to Nigeria which is quite wealthy thanks to oil). The TV licence is reported to be going up.
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
Bake Off is on Channel 4. President Trump has threatened Nigeria which is near Sudan (although how much sway the Nigerian government has over Boko Haram is not clear, and does the US even give aid to Nigeria which is quite wealthy thanks to oil). The TV licence is reported to be going up.
BBC just does Gaza.
You get better coverage of Ukraine on YouTube
For a Gaza-Repair shop-Throw-down-Strictly-Roadshow Eid Special - hosted by Naga Munchetty, they’re your people.
Appreciate it's early but curious that we don't have a good idea of what has happened here - social media accounts and phone videos would typically show up by now.
Train = isolated capsule. Maybe very few people in the carriage in question? Not sure how busy it would be, today, esp. with the rugger types not yet percolated down that far. So not something into which one can read too much.
Presumably the perp got on at Peterborough.
The section to Huntingdon is run quite slowly due to the line crossing Holme Fen, so it would have been easier to run up and down the train.
It sounds like there was only one attacker on some social media reports so who the other person arrested was isn't clear. Maybe they weren't in the same carriage.
I fear the current silence will be filled with a lot of noise, so there will have to be a statement soon.
Reddit rumours claim the police have called it a code plato and currently a media blackout. Not much of a blackout though, but five hours since the incident and very little information.
Another poster talks about the Norway one that was called early here, I remember, it was, , and it wasn’t an unreasonable conclusion to jump to, who would have thought that this one wasn’t actually the usual suspects.
The experience of that night does make me more reticent to call things without information.
Appreciate it's early but curious that we don't have a good idea of what has happened here - social media accounts and phone videos would typically show up by now.
Train = isolated capsule. Maybe very few people in the carriage in question? Not sure how busy it would be, today, esp. with the rugger types not yet percolated down that far. So not something into which one can read too much.
Presumably the perp got on at Peterborough.
The section to Huntingdon is run quite slowly due to the line crossing Holme Fen, so it would have been easier to run up and down the train.
It sounds like there was only one attacker on some social media reports so who the other person arrested was isn't clear. Maybe they weren't in the same carriage.
I fear the current silence will be filled with a lot of noise, so there will have to be a statement soon.
Reddit rumours claim the police have called it a code plato and currently a media blackout. Not much of a blackout though, but five hours since the incident and very little information.
Another poster talks about the Norway one that was called early here, I remember, it was, , and it wasn’t an unreasonable conclusion to jump to, who would have thought that this one wasn’t actually the usual suspects.
The experience of that night does make me more reticent to call things without information.
Actually as I said at the time and since, anyone who actually knew anything about Norway would have said it was a most unlikely conclusion to jump to.
I am not so critical of people on here discussing these things. Few if any are doing so from a position of an axe to grind against any particular group.
But the comments under the line on a lot of the mainstream media are shocking given how little information is out there so far. And you just know that whatever the facts in the end, there are a significant number of people who will scream cover up if the facts don't match their pre-conceived bigotry.
It is quite a task to explain the importance of the SC judgment in legal terms in response to your earlier comments but I will try.
The judgment did not simply clarify what various terms in the Equality Act meant. It also explained how phrases in legislation should be properly interpreted, in particular, the phrasing in SS. 9(1) and 9(3) in the GRA. "For all purposes" in an Act does not mean what non-lawyers assume ie you can do what you want. It does not mean that a man with GRC "for all purposes" is a woman regardless of what other legislation says. "For all purposes" means in short "for all purposes" permitted by law. So you have to look at other legislation and case law and rules of interpretation and so on to understand what it means.
That is exactly what the SC did which is why they came to the decision they did. The interpretation that the activists wanted would indeed have left the law in a mess because it would have been incoherent and inconsistent with other clear legislation and case law. The judgment OTOH makes the law clear. The reason why activists are saying otherwise is because they can no longer mislead about what it means. Hence the whining now about the cost. (This is so much phooey because business did not go round building a load of inclusive spaces; they simply changed the signs on doors and it would take ca 10 mins for the signs to be changed back again.)
The judgment is well worth reading. It is a judgment on the substance but also on statutory interpretation and it is the impact of this latter part which deals with the issues you raise but do not understand, understandably. It completely destroys the arguments made by activists and is more important than many realise because it provides very clear guidelines to how to interpret any other apparent clashes between other statutes and the GRA which may arise in future.
It would really help if those opining on it read it and not the spin put on it by lobby groups.
Anyway thanks for the debate. Will take a break now.
Just remember: women know their stuff. You underestimate us at your peril. 😀
Again, I am forced to post in two parts due to length. Apols.
1.
The letter from the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights is a useful adjunct to the above judgement worth a read, for as long as the ECHR remains enshrined in UK law:
It is written in the politest form of legalese, but it makes clear that while the ECHR respects the right of the UK government to reserve certain statutory requirements that allow trans women to be excluded from “women-only” situations, such a judgment should not be interpreted as a carte blanche for all situations that would effectively relegate trans women to a “third gender” without the right to live their lives as ordinary women.
For example, it might be arguably acceptable for the UK to legislate that 50% of a board be composed of women by birth, but a blanket ban on, for example, trans women using women’s toilets in pubs, or joining women-only gyms, would likely contravene the ECHR.
This is made explicit in the letter:
“It should be ensured that steps taken towards implementing the Supreme Court judgment avoid a situation where a person’s legal gender recognition is voided of practical meaning, to the extent that it leaves trans people in an unacceptable ‘intermediate zone.’”
This is a sensible position: it strikes a balance between recognising that there are certain situations where trans women may legitimately be excluded - for example, maybe in women’s refuges or competitive sports- while stressing that such exclusions must be legitimate and proportionate.
We seem to have a BBC headlines show from Washington describing what's going on. What the hell has happened to BBC news 24?
Does this mean we are now the 51 st state?
It merged with BBC World some time ago, and the powers that be decided we didn't need to know what was going on in our own country all of the time.
That’s probably for the best.
It comes to something when you have to watch Sky News, or even God Forbid GB news.
I'd take my chances with Sky in that instance. How are GBNews not hauled up before OfCom, every hour on the hour? OfCom is not fit for purpose.
P S. Have certain PBers demanded Cambridgeshire Constabulary avail them of the ethnicity of the knife wielding maniac yet?
Actually the one serious person GB News has is Mark White. 35 years in the business as crime and security correspondence and often ahead of the story. Shows how gutted Sky is these days they dont have Sam Kiley or White himself.
The letter makes clear that the “carte blanche” interpretation suggested by the EHRC (and for casual readers, please note the difference between the ECHR and the EHRC, it’s easy to confuse the two!) is incompatible with existing human rights legislation, as it would relegate trans people to, in the words of the letter, “intermediate zones.”
The letter further states that “a zero-sum approach [as proposed by the EHRC] risks certain inferences being drawn from the UK Supreme Court judgment that could lead to widespread exclusion of trans people from many public spaces,” and that any interventions should be “strictly necessary and proportionate, in line with well-established human rights principles.”
It also notes that “blanket practices or policies on access to gender-segregated spaces” would contravene the right to private life under Article 8.
In short, the letter politely suggests that if the Falkner/Sex Matters/EHRC guidance were to be enshrined in law, it would be in contravention of the UK’s own human rights obligations. If challenged before the European Court of Human Rights, any EHRC guidance proposing a blanket ban on trans women in all women’s spaces (toilets, women-only gyms, etc.) would almost certainly fail.
This is why the government is reluctant to endorse the EHRC guidance: they know it is incompatible with existing law. The Commissioner’s letter diplomatically acknowledges that “female at birth” is a valid legal category in some contexts but warns that this cannot be treated as a carte blanche to exclude trans women from all women’s spaces, as the EHRC proposes.
The position taken by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights (reflecting ECHR principles) is measured and reasonable. The EHRC’s proposed carte blanche approach is not.
The letter makes clear that the “carte blanche” interpretation suggested by the EHRC (and for casual readers, please note the difference between the ECHR and the EHRC, it’s easy to confuse the two!) is incompatible with existing human rights legislation, as it would relegate trans people to, in the words of the letter, “intermediate zones.”
The letter further states that “a zero-sum approach [as proposed by the EHRC] risks certain inferences being drawn from the UK Supreme Court judgment that could lead to widespread exclusion of trans people from many public spaces,” and that any interventions should be “strictly necessary and proportionate, in line with well-established human rights principles.”
It also notes that “blanket practices or policies on access to gender-segregated spaces” would contravene the right to private life under Article 8.
In short, the letter politely suggests that if the Falkner/Sex Matters/EHRC guidance were to be enshrined in law, it would be in contravention of the UK’s own human rights obligations. If challenged before the European Court of Human Rights, any EHRC guidance proposing a blanket ban on trans women in all women’s spaces (toilets, women-only gyms, etc.) would almost certainly fail.
This is why the government is reluctant to endorse the EHRC guidance: they know it is incompatible with existing law. The Commissioner’s letter diplomatically acknowledges that “female at birth” is a valid legal category in some contexts but warns that this cannot be treated as a carte blanche to exclude trans women from all women’s spaces, as the EHRC proposes.
The position taken by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights (reflecting ECHR principles) is measured and reasonable. The EHRC’s proposed carte blanche approach is not.
The position taken by the EHRC is entirely reasonable, women's spaces are for women.
Trans people are a third category perhaps and not binary, that is not "unacceptable" it just means we need to make greater provision of non-binary, gender-neutral facilities.
As recommended by the EHRC.
You can't claim simultaneously that non-binary exists then that everyone must be pigeon-holed as a binary solution as otherwise you would have intermediate zones.
Intermediate solutions may be required for non binary people. That still respects private life, while protecting women's spaces for actual women.
The letter makes clear that the “carte blanche” interpretation suggested by the EHRC (and for casual readers, please note the difference between the ECHR and the EHRC, it’s easy to confuse the two!) is incompatible with existing human rights legislation, as it would relegate trans people to, in the words of the letter, “intermediate zones.”
The letter further states that “a zero-sum approach [as proposed by the EHRC] risks certain inferences being drawn from the UK Supreme Court judgment that could lead to widespread exclusion of trans people from many public spaces,” and that any interventions should be “strictly necessary and proportionate, in line with well-established human rights principles.”
It also notes that “blanket practices or policies on access to gender-segregated spaces” would contravene the right to private life under Article 8.
In short, the letter politely suggests that if the Falkner/Sex Matters/EHRC guidance were to be enshrined in law, it would be in contravention of the UK’s own human rights obligations. If challenged before the European Court of Human Rights, any EHRC guidance proposing a blanket ban on trans women in all women’s spaces (toilets, women-only gyms, etc.) would almost certainly fail.
This is why the government is reluctant to endorse the EHRC guidance: they know it is incompatible with existing law. The Commissioner’s letter diplomatically acknowledges that “female at birth” is a valid legal category in some contexts but warns that this cannot be treated as a carte blanche to exclude trans women from all women’s spaces, as the EHRC proposes.
The position taken by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights (reflecting ECHR principles) is measured and reasonable. The EHRC’s proposed carte blanche approach is not.
The position taken by the EHRC is entirely reasonable, women's spaces are for women.
Trans people are a third category perhaps and not binary, that is not "unacceptable" it just means we need to make greater provision of non-binary, gender-neutral facilities.
As recommended by the EHRC.
You can't claim simultaneously that non-binary exists then that everyone must be pigeon-holed as a binary solution as otherwise you would have intermediate zones.
Intermediate solutions may be required for non binary people. That still respects private life, while protecting women's spaces for actual women.
To shoot your own words to me from downthread back at you, "What the law should be, and what the law is, are two different things." - the letter from the commissioner is a polite shot across the bows stating that if (perhaps, more accurately, when) the EHRC guidance comes up before the European Court of Human Rights, this is the position they are likely to take.
The commissioner is politely saying that the EHRC guidance, if enshrined in UK law, would likely violate existing human rights obligations as already enshrined in UK law - you may not like it, but that is the gist of the letter. While it is not a legal judgement, it is a very strong hint as to what the ECHR's position will be when the inevitable legal challenge comes.
Trans women do not regard themselves as "non binary" or a "third gender" - they see themselves as women and the letter makes clear that relegating them to "intermediate zones" would be a violation of their human rights.
As I say, the letter argues that while there may be some circumstances in which trans women may be excluded from "women at birth" scenarios (sports? female only shortlists? etc), these scenarios must be "necessary and proportionate" and the supreme court ruling should not be interpreted in such a way as to relegate trans women to the status of a "third gender" through the use of "blanket practices", as this would be incompatible with our human rights obligations.
You may not like it - indeed, I'm sure Farage and his ilk will withdraw the UK from the ECHR when they gain power. But for now, it is the law.
The letter makes clear that the “carte blanche” interpretation suggested by the EHRC (and for casual readers, please note the difference between the ECHR and the EHRC, it’s easy to confuse the two!) is incompatible with existing human rights legislation, as it would relegate trans people to, in the words of the letter, “intermediate zones.”
The letter further states that “a zero-sum approach [as proposed by the EHRC] risks certain inferences being drawn from the UK Supreme Court judgment that could lead to widespread exclusion of trans people from many public spaces,” and that any interventions should be “strictly necessary and proportionate, in line with well-established human rights principles.”
It also notes that “blanket practices or policies on access to gender-segregated spaces” would contravene the right to private life under Article 8.
In short, the letter politely suggests that if the Falkner/Sex Matters/EHRC guidance were to be enshrined in law, it would be in contravention of the UK’s own human rights obligations. If challenged before the European Court of Human Rights, any EHRC guidance proposing a blanket ban on trans women in all women’s spaces (toilets, women-only gyms, etc.) would almost certainly fail.
This is why the government is reluctant to endorse the EHRC guidance: they know it is incompatible with existing law. The Commissioner’s letter diplomatically acknowledges that “female at birth” is a valid legal category in some contexts but warns that this cannot be treated as a carte blanche to exclude trans women from all women’s spaces, as the EHRC proposes.
The position taken by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights (reflecting ECHR principles) is measured and reasonable. The EHRC’s proposed carte blanche approach is not.
The position taken by the EHRC is entirely reasonable, women's spaces are for women.
Trans people are a third category perhaps and not binary, that is not "unacceptable" it just means we need to make greater provision of non-binary, gender-neutral facilities.
As recommended by the EHRC.
You can't claim simultaneously that non-binary exists then that everyone must be pigeon-holed as a binary solution as otherwise you would have intermediate zones.
Intermediate solutions may be required for non binary people. That still respects private life, while protecting women's spaces for actual women.
To shoot your own words to me from downthread back at you, "What the law should be, and what the law is, are two different things." - the letter from the commissioner is a polite shot across the bows stating that if (perhaps, more accurately, when) the EHRC guidance comes up before the European Court of Human Rights, this is the position they are likely to take.
The commissioner is politely saying that the EHRC guidance, if enshrined in UK law, would likely violate existing human rights obligations as already enshrined in UK law - you may not like it, but that is the gist of the letter. While it is not a legal judgement, it is a very strong hint as to what the ECHR's position will be when the inevitable legal challenge comes.
Trans women do not regard themselves as "non binary" or a "third gender" - they see themselves as women and the letter makes clear that relegating them to "intermediate zones" would be a violation of their human rights.
As I say, the letter argues that while there may be some circumstances in which trans women may be excluded from "women at birth" scenarios (sports? female only shortlists? etc), these scenarios must be "necessary and proportionate" and the supreme court ruling should not be interpreted in such a way as to relegate trans women to the status of a "third gender" through the use of "blanket practices", as this would be incompatible with our human rights obligations.
You may not like it - indeed, I'm sure Farage and his ilk will withdraw the UK from the ECHR when they gain power. But for now, it is the law.
The law is the law and the law is set by the Supreme Court and Parliament.
No individual can prejudge what the ECHR may or may not rule, before it has passed a ruling.
What trans people see themselves as being is not the same as what they are.
Women are women, trans women are trans women, aka biological males who identify as females, they are not women.
The law is not what you pretend it is, any more than it is what Stonewall pretended it was before the Supreme Court ruling.
Unless or until the law changes, the law is what the Supreme Court has said.
If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, “guns-a-blazing,” to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST! https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115476385101120405
Attack on train doesn’t sound good. Hope everyone is okay, a train is a horrible place to be stuck with a lunatic, often quite a few minutes from being able to stop.
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
There has been excellent and in depth coverage of the wars in Sudan and Eastern DRC this week on C4 news for those genuinely interested.
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
There has been excellent and in depth coverage of the wars in Sudan and Eastern DRC this week on C4 news for those genuinely interested.
I have colleagues with family in Sudan, the reports out of there are really not good at all.
As well as DRC, there’s also violence in Nigeria and Kenya at the moment.
Sadly it appears that Western media can cope only with one war at a time.
Call me biased, but I’d rather they keep up their reporting on the war that’s in Europe.
The government is in a Hamlet-like state of psychological turmoil about whether Rachel Reeves should put up the basic rate of income tax.
Some Labour people tremble that breaking the party’s signature pledge not to touch income tax will be the terminal move that destroys what remains of the credibility of both the chancellor and the prime minister. Others in the ministerial ranks make the counterintuitive case that “tearing off the sticking plaster”, as one put it to me, offers the only hope of escape from the agonising briar patch in which the government squirms.
You can, and ministers do, point the finger at the baleful legacies of Brexit, Covid and Tory economic mismanagement. You can say, as they also do, that Russian aggression and Trumpian tariffs have made things worse. But blame-gaming doesn’t solve the dilemma.
Pat McFadden tells colleagues that he wants to have another go at welfare reform. He’s not wrong to try, but the work and pensions secretary may find the parliamentary terrain even more hostile than it was back in the summer.
[Reeves] also hears advice that a budget which merely squeezes and scrabbles to get her books back in balance will be all pain for no gain. If this is not to be an unremittingly grim event, she’ll want to announce at least a few items that Labour people will applaud and some voters might find attractive. “The worst thing she can do is not enough and have to come back and raise even more taxes next year” [says one minister]. This, in a nutshell, is the case for making it 2p on the basic rate. It might [also] be seen as fairer and less likely to damage wealth creation than alternative revenue-raisers.
The case against hiking income tax can be made just as starkly. This would be a blatant breach of Labour’s supposedly cast-iron election pledge not to raise the three big universal taxes.
Were I an economic advisor to Rachel Reeves, I’d probably tell the chancellor that raising income tax is the least worst way of gathering meaningful funds in a hurry. Were I a political strategist, I’d probably counsel that this move is freighted with a high risk of reputational suicide. She’s hearing both arguments, and I’m told she hasn’t yet made up her mind which way to leap. That’s not a surprise. Budget decisions do not come much bigger than this.
The government is in a Hamlet-like state of psychological turmoil about whether Rachel Reeves should put up the basic rate of income tax.
Some Labour people tremble that breaking the party’s signature pledge not to touch income tax will be the terminal move that destroys what remains of the credibility of both the chancellor and the prime minister. Others in the ministerial ranks make the counterintuitive case that “tearing off the sticking plaster”, as one put it to me, offers the only hope of escape from the agonising briar patch in which the government squirms.
You can, and ministers do, point the finger at the baleful legacies of Brexit, Covid and Tory economic mismanagement. You can say, as they also do, that Russian aggression and Trumpian tariffs have made things worse. But blame-gaming doesn’t solve the dilemma.
Pat McFadden tells colleagues that he wants to have another go at welfare reform. He’s not wrong to try, but the work and pensions secretary may find the parliamentary terrain even more hostile than it was back in the summer.
[Reeves] also hears advice that a budget which merely squeezes and scrabbles to get her books back in balance will be all pain for no gain. If this is not to be an unremittingly grim event, she’ll want to announce at least a few items that Labour people will applaud and some voters might find attractive. “The worst thing she can do is not enough and have to come back and raise even more taxes next year” [says one minister]. This, in a nutshell, is the case for making it 2p on the basic rate. It might [also] be seen as fairer and less likely to damage wealth creation than alternative revenue-raisers.
The case against hiking income tax can be made just as starkly. This would be a blatant breach of Labour’s supposedly cast-iron election pledge not to raise the three big universal taxes.
Were I an economic advisor to Rachel Reeves, I’d probably tell the chancellor that raising income tax is the least worst way of gathering meaningful funds in a hurry. Were I a political strategist, I’d probably counsel that this move is freighted with a high risk of reputational suicide. She’s hearing both arguments, and I’m told she hasn’t yet made up her mind which way to leap. That’s not a surprise. Budget decisions do not come much bigger than this.
Good morning, everyone.
That implies Labour thinking is that a 2p rise is economically correct but politically incorrect. Last time they faced this choice (a failed attempt to reduce the welfare bill) politics fuelled by empty-headed sentimentality proved more powerful than numeracy.
St Pancras to Peterborough, or the reverse, it looks like. Perhaps there are shorter local routes.
Happened between Stevenage and Huntingdon on the train towards Peterborough, per BBC.
Only on PB would the news of a train stabbing be followed by a discussion of the train route...
It beats most of what is below the line on the newspaper websites. Whilst a few people are expressing concern for the victims, overwhelmingly it is references to boats, immigrants and Starmer failing to keep us safe. Long before there is any indication of who the perps actually are. It rreally is a sewer.
It reminds me of the day of the Norway attacks when most people (with the notable exception of myself and SeanT) were discussing it being an islamic attack.
Yes it may well turn out this is some form of terrorist attack. But the glee with which people declare it so before there is an hint of evidence is pretty sickening.
Sadly, my first thought given the location was "gypsy fight", rather than Islamic terrorism. You can judge me for that if you like.
Meanwhile, BBC doing some much-needed public education on their live feed:
There aren't many trains whose "final destination" is Huntington [sic].
The line to Huntington closed when Littleton Colliery closed in 1992. Nearest stations now are Cannock, Hednesford and Penkridge (in roughly that order).
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
Bake Off is on Channel 4. President Trump has threatened Nigeria which is near Sudan (although how much sway the Nigerian government has over Boko Haram is not clear, and does the US even give aid to Nigeria which is quite wealthy thanks to oil). The TV licence is reported to be going up.
Huh? Nigeria and Sudan are on opposite sides of Africa!
If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, “guns-a-blazing,” to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST! https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115476385101120405
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
Bake Off is on Channel 4. President Trump has threatened Nigeria which is near Sudan (although how much sway the Nigerian government has over Boko Haram is not clear, and does the US even give aid to Nigeria which is quite wealthy thanks to oil). The TV licence is reported to be going up.
Huh? Nigeria and Sudan are on opposite sides of Africa!
The Times story about Rachel looking to tax assets of emigrants as the leave the country, can’t possibly be true can it?
Even discussion of it is going to lead people to start planning the exodus, and potential investors holding off UK investments until it’s clear what will be announced.
Even if it were to be introduced, how on earth does the government police it? Many of us who live abroad started off taking a short-term contract, or an inter-company transfer.
The Times story about Rachel looking to tax assets of emigrants as the leave the country, can’t possibly be true can it?
Even discussion of it is going to lead people to start planning the exodus, and potential investors holding off UK investments until it’s clear what will be announced.
Even if it were to be introduced, how on earth does the government police it? Many of us who live abroad started off taking a short-term contract, or an inter-company transfer.
The suggestion in the coverage is that this is what most western countries do already?
The Times story about Rachel looking to tax assets of emigrants as the leave the country, can’t possibly be true can it?
Even discussion of it is going to lead people to start planning the exodus, and potential investors holding off UK investments until it’s clear what will be announced.
Even if it were to be introduced, how on earth does the government police it? Many of us who live abroad started off taking a short-term contract, or an inter-company transfer.
The suggestion in the coverage is that this is what most western countries do already?
Even if that's accurate, making a change to country A is different to country B having the same situation as the status quo.
If two men are on £35k a year but one just received a £5k paycut, they'll have rather different feelings on the matter.
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
Yet not one of those nutjob palestinian supporters that clogged the streets every week have yet to b eseen protesting , makes you wonder.
The Times story about Rachel looking to tax assets of emigrants as the leave the country, can’t possibly be true can it?
Even discussion of it is going to lead people to start planning the exodus, and potential investors holding off UK investments until it’s clear what will be announced.
Even if it were to be introduced, how on earth does the government police it? Many of us who live abroad started off taking a short-term contract, or an inter-company transfer.
Anything is possible with these morons, apart from them complying with the taxes they stick on everyone else, amnesia is always their friend.
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
Bake Off is on Channel 4. President Trump has threatened Nigeria which is near Sudan (although how much sway the Nigerian government has over Boko Haram is not clear, and does the US even give aid to Nigeria which is quite wealthy thanks to oil). The TV licence is reported to be going up.
Huh? Nigeria and Sudan are on opposite sides of Africa!
The government is in a Hamlet-like state of psychological turmoil about whether Rachel Reeves should put up the basic rate of income tax.
Some Labour people tremble that breaking the party’s signature pledge not to touch income tax will be the terminal move that destroys what remains of the credibility of both the chancellor and the prime minister. Others in the ministerial ranks make the counterintuitive case that “tearing off the sticking plaster”, as one put it to me, offers the only hope of escape from the agonising briar patch in which the government squirms.
You can, and ministers do, point the finger at the baleful legacies of Brexit, Covid and Tory economic mismanagement. You can say, as they also do, that Russian aggression and Trumpian tariffs have made things worse. But blame-gaming doesn’t solve the dilemma.
Pat McFadden tells colleagues that he wants to have another go at welfare reform. He’s not wrong to try, but the work and pensions secretary may find the parliamentary terrain even more hostile than it was back in the summer.
[Reeves] also hears advice that a budget which merely squeezes and scrabbles to get her books back in balance will be all pain for no gain. If this is not to be an unremittingly grim event, she’ll want to announce at least a few items that Labour people will applaud and some voters might find attractive. “The worst thing she can do is not enough and have to come back and raise even more taxes next year” [says one minister]. This, in a nutshell, is the case for making it 2p on the basic rate. It might [also] be seen as fairer and less likely to damage wealth creation than alternative revenue-raisers.
The case against hiking income tax can be made just as starkly. This would be a blatant breach of Labour’s supposedly cast-iron election pledge not to raise the three big universal taxes.
Were I an economic advisor to Rachel Reeves, I’d probably tell the chancellor that raising income tax is the least worst way of gathering meaningful funds in a hurry. Were I a political strategist, I’d probably counsel that this move is freighted with a high risk of reputational suicide. She’s hearing both arguments, and I’m told she hasn’t yet made up her mind which way to leap. That’s not a surprise. Budget decisions do not come much bigger than this.
Good morning, everyone.
That implies Labour thinking is that a 2p rise is economically correct but politically incorrect. Last time they faced this choice (a failed attempt to reduce the welfare bill) politics fuelled by empty-headed sentimentality proved more powerful than numeracy.
But this is also a good example of the fact that, except maybe in the very short term, choosing politics over economics means you end up with neither - they're going to have to do something incredibly unpopular and damaging now because they were too chicken shit to do something everybody knew was necessary a few months ago.
So even on its own terms it doesn't work.
And you'd think the least popular government at this stage in history would have realised that by now, but apparently not.
The government is in a Hamlet-like state of psychological turmoil about whether Rachel Reeves should put up the basic rate of income tax.
Some Labour people tremble that breaking the party’s signature pledge not to touch income tax will be the terminal move that destroys what remains of the credibility of both the chancellor and the prime minister. Others in the ministerial ranks make the counterintuitive case that “tearing off the sticking plaster”, as one put it to me, offers the only hope of escape from the agonising briar patch in which the government squirms.
You can, and ministers do, point the finger at the baleful legacies of Brexit, Covid and Tory economic mismanagement. You can say, as they also do, that Russian aggression and Trumpian tariffs have made things worse. But blame-gaming doesn’t solve the dilemma.
Pat McFadden tells colleagues that he wants to have another go at welfare reform. He’s not wrong to try, but the work and pensions secretary may find the parliamentary terrain even more hostile than it was back in the summer.
[Reeves] also hears advice that a budget which merely squeezes and scrabbles to get her books back in balance will be all pain for no gain. If this is not to be an unremittingly grim event, she’ll want to announce at least a few items that Labour people will applaud and some voters might find attractive. “The worst thing she can do is not enough and have to come back and raise even more taxes next year” [says one minister]. This, in a nutshell, is the case for making it 2p on the basic rate. It might [also] be seen as fairer and less likely to damage wealth creation than alternative revenue-raisers.
The case against hiking income tax can be made just as starkly. This would be a blatant breach of Labour’s supposedly cast-iron election pledge not to raise the three big universal taxes.
Were I an economic advisor to Rachel Reeves, I’d probably tell the chancellor that raising income tax is the least worst way of gathering meaningful funds in a hurry. Were I a political strategist, I’d probably counsel that this move is freighted with a high risk of reputational suicide. She’s hearing both arguments, and I’m told she hasn’t yet made up her mind which way to leap. That’s not a surprise. Budget decisions do not come much bigger than this.
Good morning, everyone.
That implies Labour thinking is that a 2p rise is economically correct but politically incorrect. Last time they faced this choice (a failed attempt to reduce the welfare bill) politics fuelled by empty-headed sentimentality proved more powerful than numeracy.
But this is also a good example of the fact that, except maybe in the very short term, choosing politics over economics means you end up with neither - they're going to have to do something incredibly unpopular and damaging now because they were too chicken shit to do something everybody knew was necessary a few months ago.
So even on its own terms it doesn't work.
And you'd think the least popular government at this stage in history would have realised that by now, but apparently not.
Prof Peston’s figures from last week. Assuming no behavioural changes(!) 1p on 45p rate raises £240m 1p on 40p rate raises £1.8bn 1p on 20p rate raises £8.4bn
So she can’t raise serious money by taxing “the rich”, the only way a decent effort is made towards plugging the deficit is to raise the 20p rate.
Other serious money-raisers are reductions in starting rates for 40p and 45p, and higher-rate pension tax relief/salary sacrifice schemes, the latter would drag a few hundred thousand kicking and screaming into that 60% cliff at £100k
The Times story about Rachel looking to tax assets of emigrants as the leave the country, can’t possibly be true can it?
Even discussion of it is going to lead people to start planning the exodus, and potential investors holding off UK investments until it’s clear what will be announced.
Even if it were to be introduced, how on earth does the government police it? Many of us who live abroad started off taking a short-term contract, or an inter-company transfer.
The suggestion in the coverage is that this is what most western countries do already?
Even if that's accurate, making a change to country A is different to country B having the same situation as the status quo.
If two men are on £35k a year but one just received a £5k paycut, they'll have rather different feelings on the matter.
The Times story about Rachel looking to tax assets of emigrants as the leave the country, can’t possibly be true can it?
Even discussion of it is going to lead people to start planning the exodus, and potential investors holding off UK investments until it’s clear what will be announced.
Even if it were to be introduced, how on earth does the government police it? Many of us who live abroad started off taking a short-term contract, or an inter-company transfer.
Exodus? Not another one.
Wonder where they will go? Dubai with all those Russians. USA with all those MAGA. Singapore with all those large fines for eating a durian.
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
Bake Off is on Channel 4. President Trump has threatened Nigeria which is near Sudan (although how much sway the Nigerian government has over Boko Haram is not clear, and does the US even give aid to Nigeria which is quite wealthy thanks to oil). The TV licence is reported to be going up.
Huh? Nigeria and Sudan are on opposite sides of Africa!
Presumably he heard about Boko Haram.
[insert tasteless joke about school children here]
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
Bake Off is on Channel 4. President Trump has threatened Nigeria which is near Sudan (although how much sway the Nigerian government has over Boko Haram is not clear, and does the US even give aid to Nigeria which is quite wealthy thanks to oil). The TV licence is reported to be going up.
Huh? Nigeria and Sudan are on opposite sides of Africa!
Not really - they are only separated by Chad.
In the same way that the USA and Belize are only separated by Mexico...
1) Most remaining civilians have not fled El Fasher - likely trapped or dead 2) RSF continues mass killings 3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses. https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan. Or already dead.
I've been banging on about the shameful lack of media interest in the war in Sudan (and the DRC and Myanmar) for a few years. Wall-to-wall Gaza news (which is also a horrific situation, don't get me wrong) but .. that's it. Mono-focus. They got bored of Ukraine, so onto Gaza for a while. Now they're beginning to get bored of Gaza.
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
Bake Off is on Channel 4. President Trump has threatened Nigeria which is near Sudan (although how much sway the Nigerian government has over Boko Haram is not clear, and does the US even give aid to Nigeria which is quite wealthy thanks to oil). The TV licence is reported to be going up.
Huh? Nigeria and Sudan are on opposite sides of Africa!
The Times story about Rachel looking to tax assets of emigrants as the leave the country, can’t possibly be true can it?
Even discussion of it is going to lead people to start planning the exodus, and potential investors holding off UK investments until it’s clear what will be announced.
Even if it were to be introduced, how on earth does the government police it? Many of us who live abroad started off taking a short-term contract, or an inter-company transfer.
It’s called an exit tax and it’s pretty reasonable to be honest. The idea is not to catch people like you, but those who move to Monaco and then sell their companies 12 months later and don’t pay any capital gains tax
It is easy to argue with it (apart from the comment already made that she has lost her licence to practice medicine in the UK and the additional comment that she is a quack getting round UK regulation by having her company operate from Singapore.)
Gender may or may not be fluid or expressive. It may even be beyond control (whatever that means). But anyone wanting to live in our country still has to abide by its laws. The same laws they want to protect them. As individuals or organisations we can campaign against laws we don't agree with but also as individuals or organsiations we have no right to pick and choose which we obey. That, in the end, is the point of Cyclefree's piece.
I'm not deep into this, but was her loss of licence overturned in 2023 at the High Court?
I think Mary Harrington is right about Andrew. Casting him out is a convenient way to try to "save" the monarchy.
And make him the scapegoat so few further investigations into the other wealthy and powerful people in Epstein's orbit
That won't work.
The stupidity of the Republicans was to wind up the "Epstein file" into a piece of red meat they could deliver to MAGA. They might not have known of the reports of the photos of Trump in Epstein's safe. But Trump and perhaps some of those around him know what horrors await publication. They can bring down not just senior Republican figures and backers - but potentially even Trump himself.
The panic measure of closing down the House so that no vote can happen look to be the actions of people having no idea how to handle the problem. And now they have tens of millions of the poorest of Americans being deprived of the state support that feeds them, as fall-out from trying to keep this Epstein problem from being delivered ot the public domain. It is a problem just getting worse and worse.
Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, Bill Richardson were amongst senior Democrats who hung out with Epstein, it was not just Trump and some Republicans who were mates with him
I have seen fairly serious US coverage saying that because ex-Prince Andrew has been sanctioned so heavily here this must mean that there is much behind the Epstein claims than anyone knows yet.
It's a difficult comparison, but I think that the US coverage is jumping to conclusions, and as often taking UK media more seriously than it deserves. I think there's a "periodic fit of morality" going on, which adds extra weight.
The number of times the Daily Mail comes up as a quoted apparently serious source is quite startling. DM is now the top UK newsbrand in the USA, just outside the top 10.
It is easy to argue with it (apart from the comment already made that she has lost her licence to practice medicine in the UK and the additional comment that she is a quack getting round UK regulation by having her company operate from Singapore.)
Gender may or may not be fluid or expressive. It may even be beyond control (whatever that means). But anyone wanting to live in our country still has to abide by its laws. The same laws they want to protect them. As individuals or organisations we can campaign against laws we don't agree with but also as individuals or organsiations we have no right to pick and choose which we obey. That, in the end, is the point of Cyclefree's piece.
I'm not deep into this, but was her loss of licence overturned in 2023 at the High Court?
It is easy to argue with it (apart from the comment already made that she has lost her licence to practice medicine in the UK and the additional comment that she is a quack getting round UK regulation by having her company operate from Singapore.)
Gender may or may not be fluid or expressive. It may even be beyond control (whatever that means). But anyone wanting to live in our country still has to abide by its laws. The same laws they want to protect them. As individuals or organisations we can campaign against laws we don't agree with but also as individuals or organsiations we have no right to pick and choose which we obey. That, in the end, is the point of Cyclefree's piece.
I'm not deep into this, but was her loss of licence overturned in 2023 at the High Court?
The Times story about Rachel looking to tax assets of emigrants as the leave the country, can’t possibly be true can it?
Even discussion of it is going to lead people to start planning the exodus, and potential investors holding off UK investments until it’s clear what will be announced.
Even if it were to be introduced, how on earth does the government police it? Many of us who live abroad started off taking a short-term contract, or an inter-company transfer.
It’s called an exit tax and it’s pretty reasonable to be honest. The idea is not to catch people like you, but those who move to Monaco and then sell their companies 12 months later and don’t pay any capital gains tax
She's trying to get Boris to renounce UK citizenship .
“ Inadvertent mistake” mark 2. Another estate agent, Knight Frank, has told the Mail on Sunday that it too told Rachel Reeves she would need a licence to rent out their home in Dulwich.
She went on to use another agent, Harvey & Wheeler, and later wrote to Starmer saying she hadn’t been aware a licence was needed.
That turned out to be untrue as there were extensive emails between the agent and Mr Reeves. How many agents needed to tell her and how many times did she ignore them? Were the Reeves trying to avoid the £900+ licence fee or as a politician does lying just come to easily?
This doesn't seem to change the story. Reeves doesn't claim (afaik) to have been unaware that she needed a licence - she believed that the agents had applied for one, through their interactions with her husband.
Angela Rayner saving 40 grand by making her 'mistake' is a cause for concern. Reeves forgetting a rental licence costing a few thousand that she could easily afford, is clearly a mistake.
It's a silly scandal - criticise Reeves for her budget - there's likely to be plenty there to criticise.
It is easy to argue with it (apart from the comment already made that she has lost her licence to practice medicine in the UK and the additional comment that she is a quack getting round UK regulation by having her company operate from Singapore.)
Gender may or may not be fluid or expressive. It may even be beyond control (whatever that means). But anyone wanting to live in our country still has to abide by its laws. The same laws they want to protect them. As individuals or organisations we can campaign against laws we don't agree with but also as individuals or organsiations we have no right to pick and choose which we obey. That, in the end, is the point of Cyclefree's piece.
I'm not deep into this, but was her loss of licence overturned in 2023 at the High Court?
The President of the Family Division warned the courts about approving any treatment suggested by Gender GP, Webberley's outfit, because of evidence in this case of medical negligence by her and treatment putting a child at risk of serious harm. The woman is an absolute ghoul making money off distressed children who deserve proper help.
Comments
the papers explore how Henry Nock was able to produce the remarkable figure of 12,010 interchangeable locks in 1793–95, five years before the production of 10,000 interchangeable locks was achieved in France by Honoré Blanc, who is widely regarded as the first in this field. Significantly, Nock’s work also preceded that of Samuel Bentham, Mark Brunel and Henry Maudslay on the famous machines for making interchangeable components – in wood – for the blocks required for ships’ rigging; the three principals began their work on this in 1799. The present three-part study not only firmly establishes Henry Nock’s leading position in the field of firearm development but also as one of the pioneers of interchangeable manufacture at scale in engineering more widely, both nationally and internationally.
Especially as there's no dispute she knew one was needed in principle.
2) RSF continues mass killings
3) Displaced people visible in Garni, location of reported gross human rights abuses.
https://x.com/HRL_YaleSPH/status/1984438122369659362
Hundreds of thousands are at risk of murder in Sudan.
Or already dead.
The section to Huntingdon is run quite slowly due to the line crossing Holme Fen, so it would have been easier to run up and down the train.
It sounds like there was only one attacker on some social media reports so who the other person arrested was isn't clear. Maybe they weren't in the same carriage.
I fear the current silence will be filled with a lot of noise, so there will have to be a statement soon.
It is quite a task to explain the importance of the SC judgment in legal terms in response to your earlier comments but I will try.
The judgment did not simply clarify what various terms in the Equality Act meant. It also explained how phrases in legislation should be properly interpreted, in particular, the phrasing in SS. 9(1) and 9(3) in the GRA. "For all purposes" in an Act does not mean what non-lawyers assume ie you can do what you want. It does not mean that a man with GRC "for all purposes" is a woman regardless of what other legislation says. "For all purposes" means in short "for all purposes" permitted by law. So you have to look at other legislation and case law and rules of interpretation and so on to understand what it means.
That is exactly what the SC did which is why they came to the decision they did. The interpretation that the activists wanted would indeed have left the law in a mess because it would have been incoherent and inconsistent with other clear legislation and case law. The judgment OTOH makes the law clear. The reason why activists are saying otherwise is because they can no longer mislead about what it means. Hence the whining now about the cost. (This is so much phooey because business did not go round building a load of inclusive spaces; they simply changed the signs on doors and it would take ca 10 mins for the signs to be changed back again.)
The judgment is well worth reading. It is a judgment on the substance but also on statutory interpretation and it is the impact of this latter part which deals with the issues you raise but do not understand, understandably. It completely destroys the arguments made by activists and is more important than many realise because it provides very clear guidelines to how to interpret any other apparent clashes between other statutes and the GRA which may arise in future.
The judgment is here - https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042.
It would really help if those opining on it read it and not the spin put on it by lobby groups.
Anyway thanks for the debate. Will take a break now.
Just remember: women know their stuff. You underestimate us at your peril. 😀
Now I expect lots of reports about Sudan, hand-wringing podcasts with media people asking media people some moderately difficult questions to which they already know the answers,
I remember - many years ago - and been reminded by a comment up-thread about the World Service. It really was a marvel. News from deeply involved correspondents across the globe. Now their main news programme is just a copy'n'paste from various other BBC show snippets.
All to save the money it'd cost for an episode or two of "Celebrity Bake-Off". Though I guess training and allowing journalists to flourish costs almost 3-4 episodes.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115476385101120405
You get better coverage of Ukraine on YouTube
For a Gaza-Repair shop-Throw-down-Strictly-Roadshow Eid Special - hosted by Naga Munchetty, they’re your people.
Another poster talks about the Norway one that was called early here, I remember, it was, , and it wasn’t an unreasonable conclusion to jump to, who would have thought that this one wasn’t actually the usual suspects.
The experience of that night does make me more reticent to call things without information.
Sky
If it's not too ghoulish to suggest, that seems an oddly high ratio.
I am not so critical of people on here discussing these things. Few if any are doing so from a position of an axe to grind against any particular group.
But the comments under the line on a lot of the mainstream media are shocking given how little information is out there so far. And you just know that whatever the facts in the end, there are a significant number of people who will scream cover up if the facts don't match their pre-conceived bigotry.
P S. Have certain PBers demanded Cambridgeshire Constabulary avail them of the ethnicity of the knife wielding maniac yet?
1.
The letter from the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights is a useful adjunct to the above judgement worth a read, for as long as the ECHR remains enshrined in UK law:
https://rm.coe.int/letter-to-parliament-and-house-of-commons-of-te-united-kingdom-by-mich/488028ddd7
It is written in the politest form of legalese, but it makes clear that while the ECHR respects the right of the UK government to reserve certain statutory requirements that allow trans women to be excluded from “women-only” situations, such a judgment should not be interpreted as a carte blanche for all situations that would effectively relegate trans women to a “third gender” without the right to live their lives as ordinary women.
For example, it might be arguably acceptable for the UK to legislate that 50% of a board be composed of women by birth, but a blanket ban on, for example, trans women using women’s toilets in pubs, or joining women-only gyms, would likely contravene the ECHR.
This is made explicit in the letter:
“It should be ensured that steps taken towards implementing the Supreme Court judgment avoid a situation where a person’s legal gender recognition is voided of practical meaning, to the extent that it leaves trans people in an unacceptable ‘intermediate zone.’”
This is a sensible position: it strikes a balance between recognising that there are certain situations where trans women may legitimately be excluded - for example, maybe in women’s refuges or competitive sports- while stressing that such exclusions must be legitimate and proportionate.
(Continued in part 2)
The letter makes clear that the “carte blanche” interpretation suggested by the EHRC (and for casual readers, please note the difference between the ECHR and the EHRC, it’s easy to confuse the two!) is incompatible with existing human rights legislation, as it would relegate trans people to, in the words of the letter, “intermediate zones.”
The letter further states that “a zero-sum approach [as proposed by the EHRC] risks certain inferences being drawn from the UK Supreme Court judgment that could lead to widespread exclusion of trans people from many public spaces,” and that any interventions should be “strictly necessary and proportionate, in line with well-established human rights principles.”
It also notes that “blanket practices or policies on access to gender-segregated spaces” would contravene the right to private life under Article 8.
In short, the letter politely suggests that if the Falkner/Sex Matters/EHRC guidance were to be enshrined in law, it would be in contravention of the UK’s own human rights obligations. If challenged before the European Court of Human Rights, any EHRC guidance proposing a blanket ban on trans women in all women’s spaces (toilets, women-only gyms, etc.) would almost certainly fail.
This is why the government is reluctant to endorse the EHRC guidance: they know it is incompatible with existing law. The Commissioner’s letter diplomatically acknowledges that “female at birth” is a valid legal category in some contexts but warns that this cannot be treated as a carte blanche to exclude trans women from all women’s spaces, as the EHRC proposes.
The position taken by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights (reflecting ECHR principles) is measured and reasonable. The EHRC’s proposed carte blanche approach is not.
Trans people are a third category perhaps and not binary, that is not "unacceptable" it just means we need to make greater provision of non-binary, gender-neutral facilities.
As recommended by the EHRC.
You can't claim simultaneously that non-binary exists then that everyone must be pigeon-holed as a binary solution as otherwise you would have intermediate zones.
Intermediate solutions may be required for non binary people. That still respects private life, while protecting women's spaces for actual women.
The commissioner is politely saying that the EHRC guidance, if enshrined in UK law, would likely violate existing human rights obligations as already enshrined in UK law - you may not like it, but that is the gist of the letter. While it is not a legal judgement, it is a very strong hint as to what the ECHR's position will be when the inevitable legal challenge comes.
Trans women do not regard themselves as "non binary" or a "third gender" - they see themselves as women and the letter makes clear that relegating them to "intermediate zones" would be a violation of their human rights.
As I say, the letter argues that while there may be some circumstances in which trans women may be excluded from "women at birth" scenarios (sports? female only shortlists? etc), these scenarios must be "necessary and proportionate" and the supreme court ruling should not be interpreted in such a way as to relegate trans women to the status of a "third gender" through the use of "blanket practices", as this would be incompatible with our human rights obligations.
You may not like it - indeed, I'm sure Farage and his ilk will withdraw the UK from the ECHR when they gain power. But for now, it is the law.
No individual can prejudge what the ECHR may or may not rule, before it has passed a ruling.
What trans people see themselves as being is not the same as what they are.
Women are women, trans women are trans women, aka biological males who identify as females, they are not women.
The law is not what you pretend it is, any more than it is what Stonewall pretended it was before the Supreme Court ruling.
Unless or until the law changes, the law is what the Supreme Court has said.
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1984751216589689321
They clearly haven’t yet stopped people smoking at all of these facilities.
As well as DRC, there’s also violence in Nigeria and Kenya at the moment.
Sadly it appears that Western media can cope only with one war at a time.
Call me biased, but I’d rather they keep up their reporting on the war that’s in Europe.
The government is in a Hamlet-like state of psychological turmoil about whether Rachel Reeves should put up the basic rate of income tax.
Some Labour people tremble that breaking the party’s signature pledge not to touch income tax will be the terminal move that destroys what remains of the credibility of both the chancellor and the prime minister. Others in the ministerial ranks make the counterintuitive case that “tearing off the sticking plaster”, as one put it to me, offers the only hope of escape from the agonising briar patch in which the government squirms.
You can, and ministers do, point the finger at the baleful legacies of Brexit, Covid and Tory economic mismanagement. You can say, as they also do, that Russian aggression and Trumpian tariffs have made things worse. But blame-gaming doesn’t solve the dilemma.
Pat McFadden tells colleagues that he wants to have another go at welfare reform. He’s not wrong to try, but the work and pensions secretary may find the parliamentary terrain even more hostile than it was back in the summer.
[Reeves] also hears advice that a budget which merely squeezes and scrabbles to get her books back in balance will be all pain for no gain. If this is not to be an unremittingly grim event, she’ll want to announce at least a few items that Labour people will applaud and some voters might find attractive. “The worst thing she can do is not enough and have to come back and raise even more taxes next year” [says one minister]. This, in a nutshell, is the case for making it 2p on the basic rate. It might [also] be seen as fairer and less likely to damage wealth creation than alternative revenue-raisers.
The case against hiking income tax can be made just as starkly. This would be a blatant breach of Labour’s supposedly cast-iron election pledge not to raise the three big universal taxes.
Were I an economic advisor to Rachel Reeves, I’d probably tell the chancellor that raising income tax is the least worst way of gathering meaningful funds in a hurry. Were I a political strategist, I’d probably counsel that this move is freighted with a high risk of reputational suicide. She’s hearing both arguments, and I’m told she hasn’t yet made up her mind which way to leap. That’s not a surprise. Budget decisions do not come much bigger than this.
That implies Labour thinking is that a 2p rise is economically correct but politically incorrect. Last time they faced this choice (a failed attempt to reduce the welfare bill) politics fuelled by empty-headed sentimentality proved more powerful than numeracy.
Or maybe stone. Ukraine could have opened up Russia's return to the glorious Stone Age?
Even discussion of it is going to lead people to start planning the exodus, and potential investors holding off UK investments until it’s clear what will be announced.
Even if it were to be introduced, how on earth does the government police it? Many of us who live abroad started off taking a short-term contract, or an inter-company transfer.
In my lifetime only JFK, Reagan and Clinton are arguably in the same league, and I might even be over egging Clinton.
If two men are on £35k a year but one just received a £5k paycut, they'll have rather different feelings on the matter.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/reform-s-first-six-months-in-kent-331916/
So even on its own terms it doesn't work.
And you'd think the least popular government at this stage in history would have realised that by now, but apparently not.
1p on 45p rate raises £240m
1p on 40p rate raises £1.8bn
1p on 20p rate raises £8.4bn
So she can’t raise serious money by taxing “the rich”, the only way a decent effort is made towards plugging the deficit is to raise the 20p rate.
Other serious money-raisers are reductions in starting rates for 40p and 45p, and higher-rate pension tax relief/salary sacrifice schemes, the latter would drag a few hundred thousand kicking and screaming into that 60% cliff at £100k
NEW THREAD
Wonder where they will go? Dubai with all those Russians. USA with all those MAGA. Singapore with all those large fines for eating a durian.
[insert tasteless joke about school children here]
Obama has a conversational style that works better in seminars and small groups.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65136838
It's a difficult comparison, but I think that the US coverage is jumping to conclusions, and as often taking UK media more seriously than it deserves. I think there's a "periodic fit of morality" going on, which adds extra weight.
The number of times the Daily Mail comes up as a quoted apparently serious source is quite startling. DM is now the top UK newsbrand in the USA, just outside the top 10.
Angela Rayner saving 40 grand by making her 'mistake' is a cause for concern. Reeves forgetting a rental licence costing a few thousand that she could easily afford, is clearly a mistake.
It's a silly scandal - criticise Reeves for her budget - there's likely to be plenty there to criticise.
The President of the Family Division warned the courts about approving any treatment suggested by Gender GP, Webberley's outfit, because of evidence in this case of medical negligence by her and treatment putting a child at risk of serious harm. The woman is an absolute ghoul making money off distressed children who deserve proper help.