The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
Well obviously so. But should prisons also be rat infested, understaffed, and full of drugs?
Ideally no. But good luck with getting prisons to the top of the pile of those screaming for more money. In Scotland our solution is to let people out after ever shorter parts of their sentence. I had a death by dangerous driving case last week. The man, a foreign national, got 45 months. Of which he would normally serve about 40%. But in fact he is more likely to qualify for a tag on less than half of that. So a 45 month sentence may well turn out to be less than 45 weeks.
And the prisons are still overcrowded and dangerous.
It is a very short term saving to economise on prisons by making them "an expensive way of making bad people worse" in the words of Douglas Hurd. These convicts have a very high rate of recidivism so as well as the social and financial chaos from their repeat offending, they are soon back in prison and costing £40 000 a year, until their next release, next crime spree etc.
There is very little relationship between incarceration rates and reducing crime. America has 25% of the worlds prison polulation but isn't noted for its civil peace, while many European countries have incarceration rates of half ours, but ofyen lower rates of crime.
Properly funded prisons with an emphasis on rehabilitation, drug treatment, alternatives to violence programmes and education are very likely to pay dividends in both criminal justice and social peace.
It is the same problem in my business. The work upstream to maintain health rather than try to salvage something from the wreckage is also good value, though less of a photo-op for politicians.
The US recidivism rate is actually about average, Norway, Singapore and South Korea the best
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Dunt's example (one of many he gives, of how the code will play out in practice):
"What happens when a female trans patient is blue-lighted into hospital in an emergency? She can’t be admitted into the women’s ward. She won’t go to the men’s ward. So she’ll be sat in A&E for longer, accommodated eventually in a side room, held back from treatment. And once she’s in that side room, what happens? She will displace the people who are supposed to be there for clinical reasons - because they have a high infection risk, say, or have a compromised immune system. Trans people will be delayed and cared for away from the specialist ward. Cis people will be deprived of the spaces they need for clinical reasons. Who wins? Nobody. Nobody at all. None of this has any meaning whatsoever. It is just a needless act of administrative bother and political self-harm."
Overblown. If she's blue lit in, she'll take whatever treatment is coming.
You don't seem to understand. She won't, because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward. So the NHS won't put her there. That is what Foxy was getting at, in his above post. And also what Dunt goes on to describe in several other scenarios. Basically, you're liable as a service provider to be sued by TERFs if you admit trans women, but if you don't give trans women "separate but equal treatment" (which is an incredibly subjective term in itself creating liability) then you get sued by the trans person due to the existence of their protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
Dunt inevitably concludes - and I agree with him on this - that it will lead to far more spaces that are currently gendered becoming gender neutral. Meaning fewer spaces for women (cis and otherwise). Which is why I said, sarcastically, that Sex Matters will surely be jumping for joy at the outcome the code will deliver.
Sue the NHS? Nice people. FFS. Hospitals would be better if all patients were in single rooms.
They'd certainly treat much fewer people.
How? It would take a while but all new wards to be single room.
Streeting would be the best choice because he’d represent a decisive break with Starmer.
Ed M is too divisive even though I like him personally.
Miliband is by far the best qualified of the three to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. He worked at the Treasury and was effectively Gordon Brown's right hand man when he was CoE. There's a political dimension but knowing something about economics and government finance should count as well.
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
A simple solution would be to lock up a random selection of non-criminals, so as to dilute the effect.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Dunt's example (one of many he gives, of how the code will play out in practice):
"What happens when a female trans patient is blue-lighted into hospital in an emergency? She can’t be admitted into the women’s ward. She won’t go to the men’s ward. So she’ll be sat in A&E for longer, accommodated eventually in a side room, held back from treatment. And once she’s in that side room, what happens? She will displace the people who are supposed to be there for clinical reasons - because they have a high infection risk, say, or have a compromised immune system. Trans people will be delayed and cared for away from the specialist ward. Cis people will be deprived of the spaces they need for clinical reasons. Who wins? Nobody. Nobody at all. None of this has any meaning whatsoever. It is just a needless act of administrative bother and political self-harm."
Overblown. If she's blue lit in, she'll take whatever treatment is coming.
You don't seem to understand. She won't, because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward. So the NHS won't put her there. That is what Foxy was getting at, in his above post. And also what Dunt goes on to describe in several other scenarios. Basically, you're liable as a service provider to be sued by TERFs if you admit trans women, but if you don't give trans women "separate but equal treatment" (which is an incredibly subjective term in itself creating liability) then you get sued by the trans person due to the existence of their protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
Dunt inevitably concludes - and I agree with him on this - that it will lead to far more spaces that are currently gendered becoming gender neutral. Meaning fewer spaces for women (cis and otherwise). Which is why I said, sarcastically, that Sex Matters will surely be jumping for joy at the outcome the code will deliver.
Sue the NHS? Nice people. FFS. Hospitals would be better if all patients were in single rooms.
They'd certainly treat much fewer people.
How? It would take a while but all new wards to be single room.
My most recent experience of A&E was of every temporary space in the corridors being used and the place multiples beyond capacity. The single rooms were full, the wards were full and they were into overspill territory that was one step away from triaging folk in the car park to keep processing incomers. If they were only treating those people for whom they had an individual room, even assuming the existing wards could be converted to individual rooms at a 1:1 rate, they'd have to turn people away.
Admittedly just one hospital, but not hard to believe that many hospitals would be in a similar situation.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Dunt's example (one of many he gives, of how the code will play out in practice):
"What happens when a female trans patient is blue-lighted into hospital in an emergency? She can’t be admitted into the women’s ward. She won’t go to the men’s ward. So she’ll be sat in A&E for longer, accommodated eventually in a side room, held back from treatment. And once she’s in that side room, what happens? She will displace the people who are supposed to be there for clinical reasons - because they have a high infection risk, say, or have a compromised immune system. Trans people will be delayed and cared for away from the specialist ward. Cis people will be deprived of the spaces they need for clinical reasons. Who wins? Nobody. Nobody at all. None of this has any meaning whatsoever. It is just a needless act of administrative bother and political self-harm."
Overblown. If she's blue lit in, she'll take whatever treatment is coming.
You don't seem to understand. She won't, because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward. So the NHS won't put her there. That is what Foxy was getting at, in his above post. And also what Dunt goes on to describe in several other scenarios. Basically, you're liable as a service provider to be sued by TERFs if you admit trans women, but if you don't give trans women "separate but equal treatment" (which is an incredibly subjective term in itself creating liability) then you get sued by the trans person due to the existence of their protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
Dunt inevitably concludes - and I agree with him on this - that it will lead to far more spaces that are currently gendered becoming gender neutral. Meaning fewer spaces for women (cis and otherwise). Which is why I said, sarcastically, that Sex Matters will surely be jumping for joy at the outcome the code will deliver.
Sue the NHS? Nice people. FFS. Hospitals would be better if all patients were in single rooms.
They'd certainly treat much fewer people.
How? It would take a while but all new wards to be single room.
My most recent experience of A&E was of every temporary space in the corridors being used and the place multiples beyond capacity. The single rooms were full, the wards were full and they were into overspill territory that was one step away from triaging folk in the car park to keep processing incomers. If they were only treating those people for whom they had an individual room, even assuming the existing wards could be converted to individual rooms at a 1:1 rate, they'd have to turn people away.
Admittedly just one hospital, but not hard to believe that many hospitals would be in a similar situation.
I'm talking about an aspiration to make hospital better. When I was treated for leukaemia I was in an isolation room. So much better (besides the health reasons) for my mental state.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Dunt's example (one of many he gives, of how the code will play out in practice):
"What happens when a female trans patient is blue-lighted into hospital in an emergency? She can’t be admitted into the women’s ward. She won’t go to the men’s ward. So she’ll be sat in A&E for longer, accommodated eventually in a side room, held back from treatment. And once she’s in that side room, what happens? She will displace the people who are supposed to be there for clinical reasons - because they have a high infection risk, say, or have a compromised immune system. Trans people will be delayed and cared for away from the specialist ward. Cis people will be deprived of the spaces they need for clinical reasons. Who wins? Nobody. Nobody at all. None of this has any meaning whatsoever. It is just a needless act of administrative bother and political self-harm."
Overblown. If she's blue lit in, she'll take whatever treatment is coming.
You don't seem to understand. She won't, because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward. So the NHS won't put her there. That is what Foxy was getting at, in his above post. And also what Dunt goes on to describe in several other scenarios. Basically, you're liable as a service provider to be sued by TERFs if you admit trans women, but if you don't give trans women "separate but equal treatment" (which is an incredibly subjective term in itself creating liability) then you get sued by the trans person due to the existence of their protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
Dunt inevitably concludes - and I agree with him on this - that it will lead to far more spaces that are currently gendered becoming gender neutral. Meaning fewer spaces for women (cis and otherwise). Which is why I said, sarcastically, that Sex Matters will surely be jumping for joy at the outcome the code will deliver.
Sue the NHS? Nice people. FFS. Hospitals would be better if all patients were in single rooms.
They'd certainly treat much fewer people.
How? It would take a while but all new wards to be single room.
My most recent experience of A&E was of every temporary space in the corridors being used and the place multiples beyond capacity. The single rooms were full, the wards were full and they were into overspill territory that was one step away from triaging folk in the car park to keep processing incomers. If they were only treating those people for whom they had an individual room, even assuming the existing wards could be converted to individual rooms at a 1:1 rate, they'd have to turn people away.
Admittedly just one hospital, but not hard to believe that many hospitals would be in a similar situation.
I'm talking about an aspiration to make hospital better. When I was treated for leukaemia I was in an isolation room. So much better (besides the health reasons) for my mental state.
Oh, aspirationally, sure. I'm just saying the reality is the level of pressure baked into the system is likely...immense.
...because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward....
For the avoidance of doubt. The SC decided that for discrimination purposes the comparator for a trans woman is a cisgender male. So
A MTF, if put on a male ward, cannot sue for direct discrimination because cisgender males are also put on a male ward., so no discrimination
A hospital, if it puts a MTF on a female ward, can be sued for indirect discrimination by a cisgender male who was not allowed to be put on the same ward.
A cisgender woman can also sue the hospital because the presence of a MTF on a female ward violates the cigender females' right to privacy, safety or dignity and thus segregation would provide a proportional means of preventing that violation (and hence achieving a legitimate aim)
I have said this before on PB: the SC was quite brutal, and the EHRC's interpretation of it ladled it on in thick layers.
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
It's too soon to say for sure, but what I hope for is a progressive strategy. Starmer turned out to be all about tactics, with no detectable long-term objectives. Burnham, potentially, offers a more systematic approach. I'm intrigued, too, in his genuine interest in devolution, which isn't something that has really gone beyond casual slogans under successive PMs.
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
A simple solution would be to lock up a random selection of non-criminals, so as to dilute the effect.
Why random? I'd suggest it should be MPs, traffic wardens, telesales workers and Gbeebies "journalists".
Although that might make the criminals even worse.......
I'd think Streeting for chancellor (despite my dislike of him), then beef up the portfolios of both existing roles for Ed and Shabana. Both are (to my pov) doing their jobs well - but I could see a bit of an overall portfolio re-arrangement rather than a strict name <-> job title shuffle hitting the mark.
...because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward....
For the avoidance of doubt. The SC decided that for discrimination purposes the comparator for a trans woman is a cisgender male. So
A MTF, if put on a male ward, cannot sue for direct discrimination because cisgender males are also put on a male ward., so no discrimination
A hospital, if it puts a MTF on a female ward, can be sued for indirect discrimination by a cisgender male who was not allowed to be put on the same ward.
A cisgender woman can also sue the hospital because the presence of a MTF on a female ward violates the cigender females' right to privacy, safety or dignity and thus segregation would provide a proportional means of preventing that violation (and hence achieving a legitimate aim)
I have said this before on PB: the SC was quite brutal, and the EHRC's interpretation of it ladled it on in thick layers.
That is certainly not my understanding of how the equality act works, nor is it in the EHRC's code - which essentially forces trans people into "third spaces" by saying that discrimination (against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) may take place if a trans person is forced to use a cisgendered space corresponding to their "biological" sex. Hence separate but equal. The code is quite clear on that - Dunt has the relevant paragraphs in his Substack which I urge you to read. There are, of course, exceptions and carve outs galore but frankly I'd have to read all 300 pages of the code again to have this argument with you.
I have read both the original decision and the EHRC code (in full) but it is late, and I'm tired of having to bang on about it every time Cyclefree produces another piece of transphobic bilge.
Which current cabinet members should be excluded from Burnham's?
Hermer is top of my list Reeves, R Reeves, E (the entire department needs replacing) Jones Reed Alexander, H Lammy McFadden Phillipson Murray Kendall Nandy Miliband
The lack of real talent round the table is scary. Very poor communicators along with their other flaws
I'd think Streeting for chancellor (despite my dislike of him), then beef up the portfolios of both existing roles for Ed and Shabana. Both are (to my pov) doing their jobs well - but I could see a bit of an overall portfolio re-arrangement rather than a strict name <-> job title shuffle hitting the mark.
He should create a new Department for AI. For the avoidance of doubt that is artificial intelligence, rather than for Al Carns.
Which current cabinet members should be excluded from Burnham's?
Hermer is top of my list Reeves, R Reeves, E (the entire department needs replacing) Jones Reed Alexander, H Lammy McFadden Phillipson Murray Kendall Nandy Miliband
The lack of real talent round the table is scary. Very poor communicators along with their other flaws
It really does need to be a major cull.
Chris Curtis should get some kind of job on the basis he seems to have some actual ideas and he knows a lot about how the public think having worked for YouGov.
The best communicators are:
Burnham
Streeting
(Surprisingly) Alexander was pretty decent at transport
Ed M (he’s divisive but not a bad communicator)
I’m sure there are others but those are the good ones
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Surely if you go to A&E your life is at risk, so it really doesn't matter much if someone sees your willy
If only people with life threatening illnesses went to A&E the place would be a lot quieter.
I broke my little toe a few years ago (sticking out almost at right-angles to my foot) and called the GP surgery, who told me to go to A&E. Six hours in the waiting room later I was ushered into a cubical only for the nurse to tell me they didn't treat broken little toes and to just go away and it's probably just sort itself. If it didn't - I should call my GP. And so the great little-toe-circle began.
Now I just clart it in various random gels and creams from Amazon when it flares up.
Which current cabinet members should be excluded from Burnham's?
Hermer is top of my list Reeves, R Reeves, E (the entire department needs replacing) Jones Reed Alexander, H Lammy McFadden Phillipson Murray Kendall Nandy Miliband
The lack of real talent round the table is scary. Very poor communicators along with their other flaws
It really does need to be a major cull.
Chris Curtis should get some kind of job on the basis he seems to have some actual ideas and he knows a lot about how the public think having worked for YouGov.
The best communicators are:
Burnham
Streeting
(Surprisingly) Alexander was pretty decent at transport
Ed M (he’s divisive but not a bad communicator)
I’m sure there are others but those are the good ones
Miliband is too much of a zealot to stay where he is
Which current cabinet members should be excluded from Burnham's?
Hermer is top of my list Reeves, R Reeves, E (the entire department needs replacing) Jones Reed Alexander, H Lammy McFadden Phillipson Murray Kendall Nandy Miliband
The lack of real talent round the table is scary. Very poor communicators along with their other flaws
It really does need to be a major cull.
Chris Curtis should get some kind of job on the basis he seems to have some actual ideas and he knows a lot about how the public think having worked for YouGov.
The best communicators are:
Burnham
Streeting
(Surprisingly) Alexander was pretty decent at transport
Ed M (he’s divisive but not a bad communicator)
I’m sure there are others but those are the good ones
Miliband is too much of a zealot to stay where he is
I’d have him out of an important job but as somebody to sell the government’s position he’s not bad.
...because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward....
For the avoidance of doubt. The SC decided that for discrimination purposes the comparator for a trans woman is a cisgender male. So
A MTF, if put on a male ward, cannot sue for direct discrimination because cisgender males are also put on a male ward., so no discrimination
A hospital, if it puts a MTF on a female ward, can be sued for indirect discrimination by a cisgender male who was not allowed to be put on the same ward.
A cisgender woman can also sue the hospital because the presence of a MTF on a female ward violates the cigender females' right to privacy, safety or dignity and thus segregation would provide a proportional means of preventing that violation (and hence achieving a legitimate aim)
I have said this before on PB: the SC was quite brutal, and the EHRC's interpretation of it ladled it on in thick layers.
That is certainly not my understanding of how the equality act works, nor is it in the EHRC's code - which essentially forces trans people into "third spaces" by saying that discrimination (against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) may take place if a trans person is forced to use a cisgendered space corresponding to their "biological" sex. Hence separate but equal. The code is quite clear on that - Dunt has the relevant paragraphs in his Substack which I urge you to read. There are, of course, exceptions and carve outs galore but frankly I'd have to read all 300 pages of the code again to have this argument with you.
I have read both the original decision and the EHRC code (in full) but it is late, and I'm tired of having to bang on about it every time Cyclefree produces another piece of transphobic bilge.
The key to understanding is that the SC said the comparator for a MTF is a cisgender male, not a cisgender woman and not a FTM either.
My points were not incompatible with your explanation, since I was only dealing with one side of the issue (MTFs not allowed in female spaces) and you were dealing with both sides (MTFs not allowed in female spaces AND MTFs not allowed in male spaces either, resulting in third spaces becoming mandatory).
Which current cabinet members should be excluded from Burnham's?
Hermer is top of my list Reeves, R Reeves, E (the entire department needs replacing) Jones Reed Alexander, H Lammy McFadden Phillipson Murray Kendall Nandy Miliband
The lack of real talent round the table is scary. Very poor communicators along with their other flaws
It really does need to be a major cull.
Chris Curtis should get some kind of job on the basis he seems to have some actual ideas and he knows a lot about how the public think having worked for YouGov.
The best communicators are:
Burnham
Streeting
(Surprisingly) Alexander was pretty decent at transport
Ed M (he’s divisive but not a bad communicator)
I’m sure there are others but those are the good ones
Miliband is too much of a zealot to stay where he is
I’d have him out of an important job but as somebody to sell the government’s position he’s not bad.
Which current cabinet members should be excluded from Burnham's?
Hermer is top of my list Reeves, R Reeves, E (the entire department needs replacing) Jones Reed Alexander, H Lammy McFadden Phillipson Murray Kendall Nandy Miliband
The lack of real talent round the table is scary. Very poor communicators along with their other flaws
It really does need to be a major cull.
Chris Curtis should get some kind of job on the basis he seems to have some actual ideas and he knows a lot about how the public think having worked for YouGov.
The best communicators are:
Burnham
Streeting
(Surprisingly) Alexander was pretty decent at transport
Ed M (he’s divisive but not a bad communicator)
I’m sure there are others but those are the good ones
Miliband is too much of a zealot to stay where he is
I’d have him out of an important job but as somebody to sell the government’s position he’s not bad.
Haigh wasn’t a bad communicator either.
Haigh for Party Chair?
Miliband for Leader of the House
Yeah this is what I would do but Haigh will go back to transport
I'd think Streeting for chancellor (despite my dislike of him), then beef up the portfolios of both existing roles for Ed and Shabana. Both are (to my pov) doing their jobs well - but I could see a bit of an overall portfolio re-arrangement rather than a strict name <-> job title shuffle hitting the mark.
He should create a new Department for AI. For the avoidance of doubt that is artificial intelligence, rather than for Al Carns.
Let's not destroy AI at birth. Give it at least a few years before we smother it in random policy-change tape.
I'd think Streeting for chancellor (despite my dislike of him), then beef up the portfolios of both existing roles for Ed and Shabana. Both are (to my pov) doing their jobs well - but I could see a bit of an overall portfolio re-arrangement rather than a strict name <-> job title shuffle hitting the mark.
He should create a new Department for AI. For the avoidance of doubt that is artificial intelligence, rather than for Al Carns.
Let's not destroy AI at birth. Give it at least a few years before we smother it in random policy-change tape.
I think its more likely AI destroys us than the other way around. Having said that, its stil close to essential for the UK to be involved, especially now the US is already excluding us from the better models. London is in the top 3 for global AI cities. There is loads to be done on building capability, companies, skills and training, but yes also control and regulation.
MoreinCommon poll for ITV’s Peston tonight has a Burnham led Labour 1% ahead of Reform on 27% to 26%. The Conservatives would also only be 4% behind on 23%
MoreinCommon poll for ITV’s Peston tonight has a Burnham led Labour 1% ahead of Reform on 27% to 26%. The Conservatives would also only be 4% behind on 23%
Burnham won’t have any trouble getting back up to 30% temporarily IMV
I'd think Streeting for chancellor (despite my dislike of him), then beef up the portfolios of both existing roles for Ed and Shabana. Both are (to my pov) doing their jobs well - but I could see a bit of an overall portfolio re-arrangement rather than a strict name <-> job title shuffle hitting the mark.
He should create a new Department for AI. For the avoidance of doubt that is artificial intelligence, rather than for Al Carns.
Let's not destroy AI at birth. Give it at least a few years before we smother it in random policy-change tape.
I think its more likely AI destroys us than the other way around. Having said that, its stil close to essential for the UK to be involved, especially now the US is already excluding us from the better models. London is in the top 3 for global AI cities. There is loads to be done on building capability, companies, skills and training, but yes also control and regulation.
The US is busy excluding itself from the better models!
That said, the Chinese models are quite exceptional too. Qwen3.6 35bn8A MoE is Sonnet 4.5 quality, but running on little better than consumer hardware at home at 75 tokens per second.
...because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward....
For the avoidance of doubt. The SC decided that for discrimination purposes the comparator for a trans woman is a cisgender male. So
A MTF, if put on a male ward, cannot sue for direct discrimination because cisgender males are also put on a male ward., so no discrimination
A hospital, if it puts a MTF on a female ward, can be sued for indirect discrimination by a cisgender male who was not allowed to be put on the same ward.
A cisgender woman can also sue the hospital because the presence of a MTF on a female ward violates the cigender females' right to privacy, safety or dignity and thus segregation would provide a proportional means of preventing that violation (and hence achieving a legitimate aim)
I have said this before on PB: the SC was quite brutal, and the EHRC's interpretation of it ladled it on in thick layers.
That is certainly not my understanding of how the equality act works, nor is it in the EHRC's code - which essentially forces trans people into "third spaces" by saying that discrimination (against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) may take place if a trans person is forced to use a cisgendered space corresponding to their "biological" sex. Hence separate but equal. The code is quite clear on that - Dunt has the relevant paragraphs in his Substack which I urge you to read. There are, of course, exceptions and carve outs galore but frankly I'd have to read all 300 pages of the code again to have this argument with you.
I have read both the original decision and the EHRC code (in full) but it is late, and I'm tired of having to bang on about it every time Cyclefree produces another piece of transphobic bilge.
The key to understanding is that the SC said the comparator for a MTF is a cisgender male, not a cisgender woman and not a FTM either.
My points were not incompatible with your explanation, since I was only dealing with one side of the issue (MTFs not allowed in female spaces) and you were dealing with both sides (MTFs not allowed in female spaces AND MTFs not allowed in male spaces either, resulting in third spaces becoming mandatory).
Thanks for clarifying that, appreciated. AIUI it's going to be lawsuits galore, especially when section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 explicitly makes it a criminal offence to disclose a GRA holder's trans status or gender history without that individual's explicit consent. So it's going to be very interesting seeing what happens when all the trans women in large offices get called into the HR office one morning and all of a sudden start using the disabled loo.
The whole thing is a muddle, and as you know my personal preference is clarity through new primary legislation granting qualified and graduated entitlements to trans people based on medical diagnosis and surgical intervention. As well as deciding a lot more stuff (e.g. hospitals, prisons etc) on a case-by-case, risk assessed basis.
The absurdity of forcing a fully transitioned woman - with a female appearance, breasts, and a functional (sorry Turbotubbs, but they are very functional!) vagina - into a male prison where she can be sexually assaulted (and based on the US experience, will on the balance of probability, be raped multiple times) shows how far down the rabbit hole some people have gone.
I'm not the extremist here. The person publishing thread headers describing the inevitable, widespread, state sanctioned (based on the US experience) sexual assault of people with vaginas in male prisons - as "quite the victory" on the other hand...
Life is probably about to get a lot more difficult for Nigel Farage, because he was more charismatic than Starmer but Burnham could prove to be more charismatic than Farage.
Especially if Farage continues to communicate to the public through the medium of hostage videos.
Sooner or later, he's going to have to do the sort of interview or press conference where a hostile journalist can ask him the five million pound question.
Great match, this. Norway 3, Senegal 1, after only 57 mins.
As someone said about this World Cup, the great players have turned up – Messi, Mbappe, Haaland all on the scoresheets in their first and now second games.
The others being that there's no money for Labour's favourite, indeed only, sport - blowing other people's hard earned cash on scroungers and white elephants - and that he has no answers to any of the country's problems.
Apart from those trivial details, I predict a Golden Age.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
This is a pretty brutal assessment of Starmer's premiership. It's notable that even his defenders can't really explain what his actual merits as PM were.
This is a pretty brutal assessment of Starmer's premiership. It's notable that even his defenders can't really explain what his actual merits as PM were.
Doesn't that extend to his campaign, too? Not trying to have policies to fix things, pretending the Conservatives were just pretending there wasn't money freely available for more spending.
This is a pretty brutal assessment of Starmer's premiership. It's notable that even his defenders can't really explain what his actual merits as PM were.
The figures on applications include both Small Boat Arrivals and those applying from a different position, such as a student visa. The main nationalities arriving by small boat are Afghans, Iranians, Sudanese and Eritreans, these are the applicants with the highest success rates. 93% of Sudanese for example.
Even so and considering all asylum applications, 42% are successful at first application and of those initially rejected 76% appeal, of which 33% of appeals are successful, so the majority of asylum applications are successful.
More than 95% of small boat arrivals apply for asylum.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
I never really understood how new graduates are supposed to be able to act as management consultants, when they have no experience at all of management. I can understand the point of getting advice from veteran managers from outside the organisation.
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
Well obviously so. But should prisons also be rat infested, understaffed, and full of drugs?
Ideally no. But good luck with getting prisons to the top of the pile of those screaming for more money. In Scotland our solution is to let people out after ever shorter parts of their sentence. I had a death by dangerous driving case last week. The man, a foreign national, got 45 months. Of which he would normally serve about 40%. But in fact he is more likely to qualify for a tag on less than half of that. So a 45 month sentence may well turn out to be less than 45 weeks.
And the prisons are still overcrowded and dangerous.
It is a very short term saving to economise on prisons by making them "an expensive way of making bad people worse" in the words of Douglas Hurd. These convicts have a very high rate of recidivism so as well as the social and financial chaos from their repeat offending, they are soon back in prison and costing £40 000 a year, until their next release, next crime spree etc.
There is very little relationship between incarceration rates and reducing crime. America has 25% of the worlds prison polulation but isn't noted for its civil peace, while many European countries have incarceration rates of half ours, but ofyen lower rates of crime.
Properly funded prisons with an emphasis on rehabilitation, drug treatment, alternatives to violence programmes and education are very likely to pay dividends in both criminal justice and social peace.
It is the same problem in my business. The work upstream to maintain health rather than try to salvage something from the wreckage is also good value, though less of a photo-op for politicians.
The US recidivism rate is actually about average, Norway, Singapore and South Korea the best
It's against the law to enter the country without permission, but the authorities don't seem to apply that law very much.
Important not to mislead. It is legal to enter the country with the intention of applying for asylum.
utter bollox, they were already in many safe countries where they could have applied for it , they just illegally enter UK as it is mugsville and treats them as lottery winners.
Streeting would be the best choice because he’d represent a decisive break with Starmer.
Ed M is too divisive even though I like him personally.
Miliband is by far the best qualified of the three to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. He worked at the Treasury and was effectively Gordon Brown's right hand man when he was CoE. There's a political dimension but knowing something about economics and government finance should count as well.
FFS , that is all we need that chump getting a bigger job, rather than made redundant or moved to toilet cleaner role.
It's against the law to enter the country without permission, but the authorities don't seem to apply that law very much.
Important not to mislead. It is legal to enter the country with the intention of applying for asylum.
utter bollox, they were already in many safe countries where they could have applied for it , they just illegally enter UK as it is mugsville and treats them as lottery winners.
Not bollocks at all.
The header is about the law, and biological sex. People may not like it, but it is the law as it stands. We would have to pass legislation to change it
Similarly, it is the law that people can legally enter the country without a visa if they apply for asylum. You may well think that wrong, but we would need to pass legislation to change it.
I am one of many who think the asylum convention needs re-writing, but daft as as it stands it is the law.
The figures on applications include both Small Boat Arrivals and those applying from a different position, such as a student visa. The main nationalities arriving by small boat are Afghans, Iranians, Sudanese and Eritreans, these are the applicants with the highest success rates. 93% of Sudanese for example.
Even so and considering all asylum applications, 42% are successful at first application and of those initially rejected 76% appeal, of which 33% of appeals are successful, so the majority of asylum applications are successful.
More than 95% of small boat arrivals apply for asylum.
There were two points. The first about applying. Economic migrants come here to game the system as do visa overstayers. This needs tackled.
The second point is applying numbers for Sudanese, Ukrainians, Hong Kong Chinese as if that applies to all nationalities. It's glossing over when the issues are granular. Hence people can drill down the numbers to see the range of issues e.g. Vietnamese or even as mentioned this week someone from the US.
Discussions about immigration fall into the same hole that discussions about Trans. There is simultaneously a need to discuss the issues rationally and at the same time a number of uninformed and irrational comments. Then there is the significance issue. Should there be time, and resources given over to the Trans issue relative to the numbers of issues on immigration? Amplification by social media and astroturfed groups could be mitigated by actually looking at the numbers - but few do.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
I never really understood how new graduates are supposed to be able to act as management consultants, when they have no experience at all of management. I can understand the point of getting advice from veteran managers from outside the organisation.
They are trained in how to define and structure ambiguous problems: gather data, analyse it and present the findings clearly.
Although, I'd agree. I'd recommend doing a few years in industry first. Because otherwise you don't really know what you're looking at.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
Is one of the upsides of a Burnham premiership that Lammy will be dispensed with.?
One can only hope him and a lot of other dross will be consigned to the rubbish bin. Burnham's cabinet picks will determine whether he is just another dud in the revolving chair or if he is serious about actually doing something. Milliband, Lammy , Reeves and Cooper first for the tumbrils. Starter for 10.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
It's against the law to enter the country without permission, but the authorities don't seem to apply that law very much.
Important not to mislead. It is legal to enter the country with the intention of applying for asylum.
utter bollox, they were already in many safe countries where they could have applied for it , they just illegally enter UK as it is mugsville and treats them as lottery winners.
Not bollocks at all.
The header is about the law, and biological sex. People may not like it, but it is the law as it stands. We would have to pass legislation to change it
Similarly, it is the law that people can legally enter the country without a visa if they apply for asylum. You may well think that wrong, but we would need to pass legislation to change it.
I am one of many who think the asylum convention needs re-writing, but daft as as it stands it is the law.
Should have been shredded years ago and shows the garbage we have running the country and reason we are in the toilet.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
I can. I used to work in consulting. The vast majority of people I worked with later use that experience in business - either setting up on their own, or going in house. My worry is that without the rigorous training that Consulting provides, it is another nail in the coffin of this generation's job prospects and future employability.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
The figures on applications include both Small Boat Arrivals and those applying from a different position, such as a student visa. The main nationalities arriving by small boat are Afghans, Iranians, Sudanese and Eritreans, these are the applicants with the highest success rates. 93% of Sudanese for example.
Even so and considering all asylum applications, 42% are successful at first application and of those initially rejected 76% appeal, of which 33% of appeals are successful, so the majority of asylum applications are successful.
More than 95% of small boat arrivals apply for asylum.
There were two points. The first about applying. Economic migrants come here to game the system as do visa overstayers. This needs tackled.
The second point is applying numbers for Sudanese, Ukrainians, Hong Kong Chinese as if that applies to all nationalities. It's glossing over when the issues are granular. Hence people can drill down the numbers to see the range of issues e.g. Vietnamese or even as mentioned this week someone from the US.
Discussions about immigration fall into the same hole that discussions about Trans. There is simultaneously a need to discuss the issues rationally and at the same time a number of uninformed and irrational comments. Then there is the significance issue. Should there be time, and resources given over to the Trans issue relative to the numbers of issues on immigration? Amplification by social media and astroturfed groups could be mitigated by actually looking at the numbers - but few do.
An immigration system where you get rid of your talented people, make it hard for talented people from other countries to get in but accept all the dross and illegal entries is a recipe for disaster and surprise surprise the UK is in the crap and public services are absolutely overrun. Then these clowns wonder why local people who cannot get houses , doctors , etc get upset that you can waltz in on a boat and get a couple of years in a hotel, doctor, dentist etc etc and then a nice council house and benefits. French are not so stupid.
It's against the law to enter the country without permission, but the authorities don't seem to apply that law very much.
Important not to mislead. It is legal to enter the country with the intention of applying for asylum.
utter bollox, they were already in many safe countries where they could have applied for it , they just illegally enter UK as it is mugsville and treats them as lottery winners.
Not bollocks at all.
The header is about the law, and biological sex. People may not like it, but it is the law as it stands. We would have to pass legislation to change it
Similarly, it is the law that people can legally enter the country without a visa if they apply for asylum. You may well think that wrong, but we would need to pass legislation to change it.
I am one of many who think the asylum convention needs re-writing, but daft as as it stands it is the law.
Should have been shredded years ago and shows the garbage we have running the country and reason we are in the toilet.
To take Malc's point a little further and link it to a comment Foxy made about the problems with Maternity units in the UK having to pay out huge sums for failures. There is a need to spend time and resources on the basics (the pothole theory of everything) rather than some esoteric issue that affects few in this country as by definition they are not from this country. We have abandoned the common good for wanting to look saintly.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
The figures on applications include both Small Boat Arrivals and those applying from a different position, such as a student visa. The main nationalities arriving by small boat are Afghans, Iranians, Sudanese and Eritreans, these are the applicants with the highest success rates. 93% of Sudanese for example.
Even so and considering all asylum applications, 42% are successful at first application and of those initially rejected 76% appeal, of which 33% of appeals are successful, so the majority of asylum applications are successful.
More than 95% of small boat arrivals apply for asylum.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned but a massive advantage for Burnham is that he has a normal voice. Pretty sure that the nasal quacking of Starmer and Reeve’s, and Streeting’s robotic whine all play a part in their unpopularity. Going through the copious amounts of bile (a tedious exercise) aimed at least at the first two online, it’s striking how often the way they sound is part of the abuse.
...because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward....
For the avoidance of doubt. The SC decided that for discrimination purposes the comparator for a trans woman is a cisgender male. So
A MTF, if put on a male ward, cannot sue for direct discrimination because cisgender males are also put on a male ward., so no discrimination
A hospital, if it puts a MTF on a female ward, can be sued for indirect discrimination by a cisgender male who was not allowed to be put on the same ward.
A cisgender woman can also sue the hospital because the presence of a MTF on a female ward violates the cigender females' right to privacy, safety or dignity and thus segregation would provide a proportional means of preventing that violation (and hence achieving a legitimate aim)
I have said this before on PB: the SC was quite brutal, and the EHRC's interpretation of it ladled it on in thick layers.
That is certainly not my understanding of how the equality act works, nor is it in the EHRC's code - which essentially forces trans people into "third spaces" by saying that discrimination (against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) may take place if a trans person is forced to use a cisgendered space corresponding to their "biological" sex. Hence separate but equal. The code is quite clear on that - Dunt has the relevant paragraphs in his Substack which I urge you to read. There are, of course, exceptions and carve outs galore but frankly I'd have to read all 300 pages of the code again to have this argument with you.
I have read both the original decision and the EHRC code (in full) but it is late, and I'm tired of having to bang on about it every time Cyclefree produces another piece of transphobic bilge.
The key to understanding is that the SC said the comparator for a MTF is a cisgender male, not a cisgender woman and not a FTM either.
My points were not incompatible with your explanation, since I was only dealing with one side of the issue (MTFs not allowed in female spaces) and you were dealing with both sides (MTFs not allowed in female spaces AND MTFs not allowed in male spaces either, resulting in third spaces becoming mandatory).
Thanks for clarifying that, appreciated. AIUI it's going to be lawsuits galore, especially when section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 explicitly makes it a criminal offence to disclose a GRA holder's trans status or gender history without that individual's explicit consent. So it's going to be very interesting seeing what happens when all the trans women in large offices get called into the HR office one morning and all of a sudden start using the disabled loo.
The whole thing is a muddle, and as you know my personal preference is clarity through new primary legislation granting qualified and graduated entitlements to trans people based on medical diagnosis and surgical intervention. As well as deciding a lot more stuff (e.g. hospitals, prisons etc) on a case-by-case, risk assessed basis.
The absurdity of forcing a fully transitioned woman - with a female appearance, breasts, and a functional (sorry Turbotubbs, but they are very functional!) vagina - into a male prison where she can be sexually assaulted (and based on the US experience, will on the balance of probability, be raped multiple times) shows how far down the rabbit hole some people have gone.
I'm not the extremist here. The person publishing thread headers describing the inevitable, widespread, state sanctioned (based on the US experience) sexual assault of people with vaginas in male prisons - as "quite the victory" on the other hand...
No matter how much lipstick you put on a trans woman’s vagina, it’s still not a vagina.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
If they have technical skills relevant to the business, yes.
The reason why consultancy is a thing is because it's economically inefficient for any one business to retain a full time in-house team of problem solvers. They alone will only need that experience now and again. However, most businesses need this expertise in aggregate, because supply chains, regulations, technology, finance markets and consumer demand is changing all the time, so consultancies are born that can create a business model from it. And they can then sell that experience and practice to others.
The real issue is we train too many "generalists" and not enough scientists, engineers or technicians.
This is the kind of post that really winds me up. What 'Michael Crick interview'? With whom?
It's like the 6 year old who assumes inhabit their world, know all their friends, etc. We get a lot of this on PB and this is by no means the worst example.
...because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward....
For the avoidance of doubt. The SC decided that for discrimination purposes the comparator for a trans woman is a cisgender male. So
A MTF, if put on a male ward, cannot sue for direct discrimination because cisgender males are also put on a male ward., so no discrimination
A hospital, if it puts a MTF on a female ward, can be sued for indirect discrimination by a cisgender male who was not allowed to be put on the same ward.
A cisgender woman can also sue the hospital because the presence of a MTF on a female ward violates the cigender females' right to privacy, safety or dignity and thus segregation would provide a proportional means of preventing that violation (and hence achieving a legitimate aim)
I have said this before on PB: the SC was quite brutal, and the EHRC's interpretation of it ladled it on in thick layers.
That is certainly not my understanding of how the equality act works, nor is it in the EHRC's code - which essentially forces trans people into "third spaces" by saying that discrimination (against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) may take place if a trans person is forced to use a cisgendered space corresponding to their "biological" sex. Hence separate but equal. The code is quite clear on that - Dunt has the relevant paragraphs in his Substack which I urge you to read. There are, of course, exceptions and carve outs galore but frankly I'd have to read all 300 pages of the code again to have this argument with you.
I have read both the original decision and the EHRC code (in full) but it is late, and I'm tired of having to bang on about it every time Cyclefree produces another piece of transphobic bilge.
The key to understanding is that the SC said the comparator for a MTF is a cisgender male, not a cisgender woman and not a FTM either.
My points were not incompatible with your explanation, since I was only dealing with one side of the issue (MTFs not allowed in female spaces) and you were dealing with both sides (MTFs not allowed in female spaces AND MTFs not allowed in male spaces either, resulting in third spaces becoming mandatory).
Thanks for clarifying that, appreciated. AIUI it's going to be lawsuits galore, especially when section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 explicitly makes it a criminal offence to disclose a GRA holder's trans status or gender history without that individual's explicit consent. So it's going to be very interesting seeing what happens when all the trans women in large offices get called into the HR office one morning and all of a sudden start using the disabled loo.
The whole thing is a muddle, and as you know my personal preference is clarity through new primary legislation granting qualified and graduated entitlements to trans people based on medical diagnosis and surgical intervention. As well as deciding a lot more stuff (e.g. hospitals, prisons etc) on a case-by-case, risk assessed basis.
The absurdity of forcing a fully transitioned woman - with a female appearance, breasts, and a functional (sorry Turbotubbs, but they are very functional!) vagina - into a male prison where she can be sexually assaulted (and based on the US experience, will on the balance of probability, be raped multiple times) shows how far down the rabbit hole some people have gone.
I'm not the extremist here. The person publishing thread headers describing the inevitable, widespread, state sanctioned (based on the US experience) sexual assault of people with vaginas in male prisons - as "quite the victory" on the other hand...
No matter how much lipstick you put on a trans woman’s vagina, it’s still not a vagina.
Comments
Properly selecting and training candidates plus formulating coherent policies are not things Farage and his lackies can be bothered to do.
Admittedly just one hospital, but not hard to believe that many hospitals would be in a similar situation.
- A MTF, if put on a male ward, cannot sue for direct discrimination because cisgender males are also put on a male ward., so no discrimination
- A hospital, if it puts a MTF on a female ward, can be sued for indirect discrimination by a cisgender male who was not allowed to be put on the same ward.
- A cisgender woman can also sue the hospital because the presence of a MTF on a female ward violates the cigender females' right to privacy, safety or dignity and thus segregation would provide a proportional means of preventing that violation (and hence achieving a legitimate aim)
I have said this before on PB: the SC was quite brutal, and the EHRC's interpretation of it ladled it on in thick layers.Although that might make the criminals even worse.......
Would prefer Streeting to stay at Health too.
But Miliband for CoE? Nah.
Is there a fourth option?
I have read both the original decision and the EHRC code (in full) but it is late, and I'm tired of having to bang on about it every time Cyclefree produces another piece of transphobic bilge.
Hermer is top of my list
Reeves, R
Reeves, E (the entire department needs replacing)
Jones
Reed
Alexander, H
Lammy
McFadden
Phillipson
Murray
Kendall
Nandy
Miliband
The lack of real talent round the table is scary. Very poor communicators along with their other flaws
It really does need to be a major cull.
The best communicators are:
Burnham
Streeting
(Surprisingly) Alexander was pretty decent at transport
Ed M (he’s divisive but not a bad communicator)
I’m sure there are others but those are the good ones
Now I just clart it in various random gels and creams from Amazon when it flares up.
Haigh wasn’t a bad communicator either.
My points were not incompatible with your explanation, since I was only dealing with one side of the issue (MTFs not allowed in female spaces) and you were dealing with both sides (MTFs not allowed in female spaces AND MTFs not allowed in male spaces either, resulting in third spaces becoming mandatory).
Miliband for Leader of the House
That said, the Chinese models are quite exceptional too. Qwen3.6 35bn8A MoE is Sonnet 4.5 quality, but running on little better than consumer hardware at home at 75 tokens per second.
Facebook (sorry).
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=212963243436534
The whole thing is a muddle, and as you know my personal preference is clarity through new primary legislation granting qualified and graduated entitlements to trans people based on medical diagnosis and surgical intervention. As well as deciding a lot more stuff (e.g. hospitals, prisons etc) on a case-by-case, risk assessed basis.
The absurdity of forcing a fully transitioned woman - with a female appearance, breasts, and a functional (sorry Turbotubbs, but they are very functional!) vagina - into a male prison where she can be sexually assaulted (and based on the US experience, will on the balance of probability, be raped multiple times) shows how far down the rabbit hole some people have gone.
I'm not the extremist here. The person publishing thread headers describing the inevitable, widespread, state sanctioned (based on the US experience) sexual assault of people with vaginas in male prisons - as "quite the victory" on the other hand...
Not least because Labour MPs have gained a taste for rebellion" (£)
https://www.economist.com/britain/2026/06/22/andy-burnham-may-find-sir-keir-starmer-a-hard-act-to-follow
The others being that there's no money for Labour's favourite, indeed only, sport - blowing other people's hard earned cash on scroungers and white elephants - and that he has no answers to any of the country's problems.
Apart from those trivial details, I predict a Golden Age.
Putin’s troops threaten to take control of Kostyantynivka – a key stronghold defending Donbas
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/06/22/russian-troops-infiltrate-kostyantynivka-ukraine-donbas-war/ (£££)
The SMO is not all going Ukraine's way.
Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
...
...
There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Globally, it is estimated to be worth more than $500bn (£378bn) a year. It provides training for tens of thousands of new graduates every year, giving them the first rung on the ladder in a business career. If it starts to decline significantly, that will impact the entire British economy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/21/accentures-crash-shows-the-consultancy-racket-is-finished/ (£££)
Just sayin'.
Frozen by the challenges of power: how Starmer turned triumph into tragedy
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2026/jun/22/frozen-by-the-challenges-of-power-how-starmer-turned-triumph-into-tragedy
Doesn't that extend to his campaign, too? Not trying to have policies to fix things, pretending the Conservatives were just pretending there wasn't money freely available for more spending.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wDTjOl8mTQk
Andy Burnham Could Be As Unpopular As Starmer | Michael Crick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UQd8ID_MPs
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2026/how-many-people-are-granted-asylum-in-the-uk
The figures on applications include both Small Boat Arrivals and those applying from a different position, such as a student visa. The main nationalities arriving by small boat are Afghans, Iranians, Sudanese and Eritreans, these are the applicants with the highest success rates. 93% of Sudanese for example.
Even so and considering all asylum applications, 42% are successful at first application and of those initially rejected 76% appeal, of which 33% of appeals are successful, so the majority of asylum applications are successful.
More than 95% of small boat arrivals apply for asylum.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
It's a typical right wing trope pre and post Truss...are you ready.
No one is ready by the definition being asked which is incoherent and insurmountable!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer
The header is about the law, and biological sex. People may not like it, but it is the law as it stands. We would have to pass legislation to change it
Similarly, it is the law that people can legally enter the country without a visa if they apply for asylum. You may well think that wrong, but we would need to pass legislation to change it.
I am one of many who think the asylum convention needs re-writing, but daft as as it stands it is the law.
By their words ye shall know them:
Wes Streeting: If there’s a leadership contest I will definitely be a candidate.
He’s not running.
Keir Starmer: If a leadership contest is triggered I will definitely be a candidate.
He’s not running.
It would teach him rather a sharp lesson.
The second point is applying numbers for Sudanese, Ukrainians, Hong Kong Chinese as if that applies to all nationalities. It's glossing over when the issues are granular. Hence people can drill down the numbers to see the range of issues e.g. Vietnamese or even as mentioned this week someone from the US.
Discussions about immigration fall into the same hole that discussions about Trans. There is simultaneously a need to discuss the issues rationally and at the same time a number of uninformed and irrational comments. Then there is the significance issue. Should there be time, and resources given over to the Trans issue relative to the numbers of issues on immigration? Amplification by social media and astroturfed groups could be mitigated by actually looking at the numbers - but few do.
Although, I'd agree. I'd recommend doing a few years in industry first. Because otherwise you don't really know what you're looking at.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
The first thing Burnham needs to do is make sure England win the World Cup. #simples
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
Then these clowns wonder why local people who cannot get houses , doctors , etc get upset that you can waltz in on a boat and get a couple of years in a hotel, doctor, dentist etc etc and then a nice council house and benefits.
French are not so stupid.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
Going through the copious amounts of bile (a tedious exercise) aimed at least at the first two online, it’s striking how often the way they sound is part of the abuse.
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
The reason why consultancy is a thing is because it's economically inefficient for any one business to retain a full time in-house team of problem solvers. They alone will only need that experience now and again. However, most businesses need this expertise in aggregate, because supply chains, regulations, technology, finance markets and consumer demand is changing all the time, so consultancies are born that can create a business model from it. And they can then sell that experience and practice to others.
The real issue is we train too many "generalists" and not enough scientists, engineers or technicians.
It's like the 6 year old who assumes inhabit their world, know all their friends, etc. We get a lot of this on PB and this is by no means the worst example.
(Rant over - I feel better now. Thanks)