"A senior Birmingham councillor has sparked a row with Labour’s biggest union backer after saying binmen don’t deserve more pay.
Leaked messages seen by The Telegraph show that Rob Pocock, a member of the council’s cabinet, complained that refuse workers were demanding pay the “job simply does not merit”."
Good prog about Nick Leeson (on now). Thatcher and her gang really do send the shivers down you.
The UK's version of the US under Trunmp and co now.
Far be it for me to defend "Mrs Fatch", but to be fair to her she didn't attempt a dictatorial coup and she walked when she was told to walk.
All true. But a 25 year old trader at a bank was able to make a mistake which would have cost the bank $20,000 but which escalated to a loss of £850,000,000 bringing down the UKs oldest bank because of her and Nigel Lawson turning the financial system into a free-for-all for spivs.
But as you say still well short of Trump and his cronies shenanigans...
You should read up on the history of banks going bankrupt in the U.K.
Try looking up the effects of the “Railway Mania” for example.
Modernising the markets was not the issue. That kind of “fuck up and hide the losses” has happened many, many times. The problem was relying on personal trust.
"The French Interior Ministry says it’s in negotiations with the UK about an agreement to take back some migrants who have crossed the Channel in small boats. But it would involve the UK taking migrants from France under a family reunification scheme on a one-for-one basis."
Very much depends on the details, but it might be worth a go.
Latest MIC leadership polling. Amongst 2024 Tory voters barely a third think Badenoch best PM. Farage next most popular, but surprising support for Starmer too.
I suspect if the Tories replaced Badenoch with Honest Bobby J. we would see an exponential change between Ref and Con.
I doubt it. The Conservatives' fundamental problems are:-
they have hardly any MPs left (about 120; they lost 250 MPs last July)
Boris purged a lot of the experienced ones
almost every criticism of Labour at PMQs can be knocked back by Starmer saying the Tories started it (whatever "it" is)
None of that changes under Jenrick.
Yes. An even more fundamental problem is that the old factions of the old Tory party - One Nation, professionals, blue collar, IEA types, populists, faith family flag etc - have grown apart that they cannot find a leader to cohere it all. Nor do they have a front bench of characters that are memorable or can talk like statesmen.
Not quite - there's an old political adage (Stodge's Ninth Law I believe) - "nothing unites like success". It's amazing how easily factions work together when everything is going well and especially if power looks within reach.
Normally, I'd agree with you. Which is what makes the behaviour of the Conservatives in the 2010s (when ideology and personality came to matter much more than staying in government) so peculiar. I'm not shocked that Labour are doing it now, but part of the point of the Conservatives is (was?) to focus on the prize.
And the corollary of Stodge IX is that failure divides. Since division leads to failure, that's a feedback that needs special leadership (or more likely good luck) to break out of.
Yes. I suppose the chances are that the Tories will come right at some point even though I can't see how at the moment. All politics is relative of course, but even though Labour are very very unpopular the Tories are even more so. I am doubtful if they can make it work until they are at the point where three things happen in addition to luck.
(1) The old guard - Rory, Gauke, Grieve etc - are clearly backing them (2) They have a phalanx of front bench people - about eight would do - who are statesmen and women and look like a Tory government in waiting and are on all the media all the time (3) They learn to communicate with the thoughtful and to Mail readers at the same time.
I think my question above is more cogent: under this ruling, what is the function of a GRC? If a person before a GRC has the same rights as a person after a GRC, then what is its function in law?
IMHO it was a device to try to drive a legal wedge between Scots Law and that of E&W. 'Look at those English telling us what to believe when we are quite happy with bearded men in skirts'.
Putting Lord Hodge in charge was a one of those nuances the Supreme Court/HoL have used over time.
As regards the GRC, suppose they can frame it but ultimately it will make no real difference about how the majority of LGBTQI live their lives.
I don't believe that he spoke to three KC's who said that the case brought by For Women Scotland was inarguable.
Inarguable cases do not go before the Supreme Court.
Jolyon is more activist than lawyer.
A KC’s opinion may be motivated by other than the probability of winning.
For example
1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme. 2) You find a KC who, for a fee, creates an opinion that the scheme is valid. 3) You sell this scheme to people, on the basis of said legal opinion and rake in huge fees 4) The scheme is judged to be bollocks and the clients from 3) are taxed and fined. 5) There is no recourse against the KC, since his opinion didn’t cause any problems for *you* the actual client. 1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme.
"The French Interior Ministry says it’s in negotiations with the UK about an agreement to take back some migrants who have crossed the Channel in small boats. But it would involve the UK taking migrants from France under a family reunification scheme on a one-for-one basis."
Very much depends on the details, but it might be worth a go.
On the face of it this seems most reasonable to me. If they are going to come anyway to reunite then make it safe for them and send back some others at the same time as a quid pro quo.
I think my question above is more cogent: under this ruling, what is the function of a GRC? If a person before a GRC has the same rights as a person after a GRC, then what is its function in law?
To distinguish a trans person in equalities law which is distinct from biological sex based on today's judgement
I don't believe that he spoke to three KC's who said that the case brought by For Women Scotland was inarguable.
Inarguable cases do not go before the Supreme Court.
Jolyon is more activist than lawyer.
A KC’s opinion may be motivated by other than the probability of winning.
For example
1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme. 2) You find a KC who, for a fee, creates an opinion that the scheme is valid. 3) You sell this scheme to people, on the basis of said legal opinion and rake in huge fees 4) The scheme is judged to be bollocks and the clients from 3) are taxed and fined. 5) There is no recourse against the KC, since his opinion didn’t cause any problems for *you* the actual client. 1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme.
Trebles all round.
I suppose you can go to a KC who specialises in, say, Court of Protection work, and ask him for his views on the case, but he would be operating outside his wheelhouse. His views on the case would be of no more significance than mine are.
I don't believe that he spoke to three KC's who said that the case brought by For Women Scotland was inarguable.
Inarguable cases do not go before the Supreme Court.
Jolyon is more activist than lawyer.
A KC’s opinion may be motivated by other than the probability of winning.
For example
1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme. 2) You find a KC who, for a fee, creates an opinion that the scheme is valid. 3) You sell this scheme to people, on the basis of said legal opinion and rake in huge fees 4) The scheme is judged to be bollocks and the clients from 3) are taxed and fined. 5) There is no recourse against the KC, since his opinion didn’t cause any problems for *you* the actual client. 1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme.
Trebles all round.
As a retired tax lawyer I am SHOCKED by your cynicism.
Not.
I still remember paying a very eminent tax QC £10k for a one-off consult in which he gave entirely the opposing view to the one he had given in an equally expensive opinion to a business competitor of my client. He just told each of us what we wanted to hear, in the most silky smooth tones.
I don't believe that he spoke to three KC's who said that the case brought by For Women Scotland was inarguable.
Inarguable cases do not go before the Supreme Court.
Jolyon is more activist than lawyer.
A KC’s opinion may be motivated by other than the probability of winning.
For example
1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme. 2) You find a KC who, for a fee, creates an opinion that the scheme is valid. 3) You sell this scheme to people, on the basis of said legal opinion and rake in huge fees 4) The scheme is judged to be bollocks and the clients from 3) are taxed and fined. 5) There is no recourse against the KC, since his opinion didn’t cause any problems for *you* the actual client. 1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme.
Trebles all round.
I suppose you can go to a KC who specialises in, say, Court of Protection work, and ask him for his views on the case, but he would be operating outside his wheelhouse. His views on the case would be of no more significance than mine are.
Or he is worried about being beaten to death with a cricket bat, and says whatever will shut the nutter up.
Good prog about Nick Leeson (on now). Thatcher and her gang really do send the shivers down you.
The UK's version of the US under Trunmp and co now.
Far be it for me to defend "Mrs Fatch", but to be fair to her she didn't attempt a dictatorial coup and she walked when she was told to walk.
All true. But a 25 year old trader at a bank was able to make a mistake which would have cost the bank $20,000 but which escalated to a loss of £850,000,000 bringing down the UKs oldest bank because of her and Nigel Lawson turning the financial system into a free-for-all for spivs.
But as you say still well short of Trump and his cronies shenanigans...
You do realise that Leeson committed his crimes in Singapore not the UK and so Thatcher and Lawson had no control over his activities in a different country outwith their governance?
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
Indeed and, to be serious, this DOES feel like a tremor in the vibequake
I predict within 5-10 years huge swathes of Woke legislation - from the equality act to asylum rights to hate speech laws and much else - will have been repealed and reversed. It’s coming
That's not a logical extrapolation of this ruling. This was about a conflict between the EA and the GRA. The integrity of the EA was deemed the more important. The GRA must now take a look at itself and decide where it goes from here.
I’m extrapolating. It’s my thing
A crucial feature of cultural shifts is that each individual movement can be justified in and of itself, and means nothing. Like an individual starling flying to the left
But then you step back and you see the murmuration. A million glorious starlings flying to the horizon where woke goes to die
It’s happening so you might as well thrill to the spectacle
Extrapolation is fine but it's most effective when there's some logic in there too. This judgement isn't driven by anti-woke it's about resolving a conflict between two progressive minded pieces of legislation, the equality act and the gender recognition act. They'd almost certainly have ruled the same if Trump had lost on November 5th.
This is not to deny there is in general a vibe shift towards less enlightened attitudes. Clearly there is. It's just that this is not a good example of it. This was about logic, consistency and coherence in statute.
I don't believe that he spoke to three KC's who said that the case brought by For Women Scotland was inarguable.
Inarguable cases do not go before the Supreme Court.
Jolyon is more activist than lawyer.
A KC’s opinion may be motivated by other than the probability of winning.
For example
1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme. 2) You find a KC who, for a fee, creates an opinion that the scheme is valid. 3) You sell this scheme to people, on the basis of said legal opinion and rake in huge fees 4) The scheme is judged to be bollocks and the clients from 3) are taxed and fined. 5) There is no recourse against the KC, since his opinion didn’t cause any problems for *you* the actual client. 1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme.
Trebles all round.
I suppose you can go to a KC who specialises in, say, Court of Protection work, and ask him for his views on the case, but he would be operating outside his wheelhouse. His views on the case would be of no more significance than mine are.
Or he is worried about being beaten to death with a cricket bat, and says whatever will shut the nutter up.
I don't believe that he spoke to three KC's who said that the case brought by For Women Scotland was inarguable.
Inarguable cases do not go before the Supreme Court.
Jolyon is more activist than lawyer.
A KC’s opinion may be motivated by other than the probability of winning.
For example
1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme. 2) You find a KC who, for a fee, creates an opinion that the scheme is valid. 3) You sell this scheme to people, on the basis of said legal opinion and rake in huge fees 4) The scheme is judged to be bollocks and the clients from 3) are taxed and fined. 5) There is no recourse against the KC, since his opinion didn’t cause any problems for *you* the actual client. 1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme.
Trebles all round.
As a retired tax lawyer I am SHOCKED by your cynicism.
Not.
I still remember paying a very eminent tax QC £10k for a one-off consult in which he gave entirely the opposing view to the one he had given in an equally expensive opinion to a business competitor of my client. He just told each of us what we wanted to hear, in the most silky smooth tones.
And of course Jolyon was previously specialist tax counsel, so he should know full well how it really works:
Good prog about Nick Leeson (on now). Thatcher and her gang really do send the shivers down you.
The UK's version of the US under Trunmp and co now.
Far be it for me to defend "Mrs Fatch", but to be fair to her she didn't attempt a dictatorial coup and she walked when she was told to walk.
All true. But a 25 year old trader at a bank was able to make a mistake which would have cost the bank $20,000 but which escalated to a loss of £850,000,000 bringing down the UKs oldest bank because of her and Nigel Lawson turning the financial system into a free-for-all for spivs.
But as you say still well short of Trump and his cronies shenanigans...
You do realise that Leeson committed his crimes in Singapore not the UK and so Thatcher and Lawson had no control over his activities in a different country outwith their governance?
And was charged, sentenced and imprisoned in....Singapore...an independent country since 1959.
Rog keeping his batting average up of being wrong on everything (other than Oscar predictions).
Good prog about Nick Leeson (on now). Thatcher and her gang really do send the shivers down you.
The UK's version of the US under Trunmp and co now.
Far be it for me to defend "Mrs Fatch", but to be fair to her she didn't attempt a dictatorial coup and she walked when she was told to walk.
All true. But a 25 year old trader at a bank was able to make a mistake which would have cost the bank $20,000 but which escalated to a loss of £850,000,000 bringing down the UKs oldest bank because of her and Nigel Lawson turning the financial system into a free-for-all for spivs.
But as you say still well short of Trump and his cronies shenanigans...
You do realise that Leeson committed his crimes in Singapore not the UK and so Thatcher and Lawson had no control over his activities in a different country outwith their governance?
And was charged, sentenced and imprisoned in....Singapore...
Rog keeping his batting average up of being wrong on everything (other than Oscar predictions).
His earlier post that Rachel Reeves is doing OK should sound more alarm bells than an iceberg sighting.
I think my question above is more cogent: under this ruling, what is the function of a GRC? If a person before a GRC has the same rights as a person after a GRC, then what is its function in law?
To distinguish a trans person in equalities law which is distinct from biological sex based on today's judgement
...which then begs the question: what rights does a trans person with a GRC have under equities law that they did not have before getting one? For a GRC to have a function it must confer a state change on the individual (see also marriage certificate). Under this ruling it seems it does not.
Unless you can give me an example of a right that is conferred that is not possessed beforehand?
Good prog about Nick Leeson (on now). Thatcher and her gang really do send the shivers down you.
The UK's version of the US under Trunmp and co now.
Far be it for me to defend "Mrs Fatch", but to be fair to her she didn't attempt a dictatorial coup and she walked when she was told to walk.
All true. But a 25 year old trader at a bank was able to make a mistake which would have cost the bank $20,000 but which escalated to a loss of £850,000,000 bringing down the UKs oldest bank because of her and Nigel Lawson turning the financial system into a free-for-all for spivs.
But as you say still well short of Trump and his cronies shenanigans...
You do realise that Leeson committed his crimes in Singapore not the UK and so Thatcher and Lawson had no control over his activities in a different country outwith their governance?
And was charged, sentenced and imprisoned in....Singapore...
Rog keeping his batting average up of being wrong on everything (other than Oscar predictions).
His earlier post that Rachel Reeves is doing OK should sound more alarm bells than an iceberg sighting.
I think my question above is more cogent: under this ruling, what is the function of a GRC? If a person before a GRC has the same rights as a person after a GRC, then what is its function in law?
I think there will be a distinction between legal transition and social transitioning.
Trans people will continue to exist, can dress as they choose and have names and pronouns of their choice. I suspect that many will unobtrusively use the toilets of their choice too.
What changes is that they will not be able to force organisations to recognise them in their gender.
It does very much raise the meaning of a GRC, though if a person's documents are all in the new gender then challenging them would require a chromosome analysis. Possible in sport or prison perhaps, but at a restaurant toilets?
Good prog about Nick Leeson (on now). Thatcher and her gang really do send the shivers down you.
The UK's version of the US under Trunmp and co now.
Far be it for me to defend "Mrs Fatch", but to be fair to her she didn't attempt a dictatorial coup and she walked when she was told to walk.
All true. But a 25 year old trader at a bank was able to make a mistake which would have cost the bank $20,000 but which escalated to a loss of £850,000,000 bringing down the UKs oldest bank because of her and Nigel Lawson turning the financial system into a free-for-all for spivs.
But as you say still well short of Trump and his cronies shenanigans...
You should read up on the history of banks going bankrupt in the U.K.
Try looking up the effects of the “Railway Mania” for example.
Modernising the markets was not the issue. That kind of “fuck up and hide the losses” has happened many, many times. The problem was relying on personal trust.
I think my question above is more cogent: under this ruling, what is the function of a GRC? If a person before a GRC has the same rights as a person after a GRC, then what is its function in law?
To distinguish a trans person in equalities law which is distinct from biological sex based on today's judgement
...which then begs the question: what rights does a trans person with a GRC have under equities law that they did not have before getting one? For a GRC to have a function it must confer a state change on the individual (see also marriage certificate). Under this ruling it seems it does not.
Unless you can give me an example of a right that is conferred that is not possessed beforehand?
Someone on the twitter says:
"The GRA was originally drafted to enable trans people to marry people of the same sex. It is redundant now and this ruling makes it even more redundant."
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
Not possible. People discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I might not hire someone because they’re a Sunderland fan. Should that be illegal?
Latest MIC leadership polling. Amongst 2024 Tory voters barely a third think Badenoch best PM. Farage next most popular, but surprising support for Starmer too.
I suspect if the Tories replaced Badenoch with Honest Bobby J. we would see an exponential change between Ref and Con.
I doubt it. The Conservatives' fundamental problems are:-
they have hardly any MPs left (about 120; they lost 250 MPs last July)
Boris purged a lot of the experienced ones
almost every criticism of Labour at PMQs can be knocked back by Starmer saying the Tories started it (whatever "it" is)
None of that changes under Jenrick.
Although what is the point of Farage when the Tories have Honest Bob (although the opposite is equally applicable)?
Farage offers NOTA. The old parties have failed, try my new panacea (see also Brexit). Jenrick personifies that history of failure – for Farage, for voters, and for Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Jenrick's latest pronouncements are against Islamist gangs running prisons, which, as Starmer will remind everyone, started under the Conservatives, along with prison overcrowding, access to boiling oil and so on and so forth.
Most damning of all, Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.
Jenrick would solve some problems for the Conservatives. He is undoubtedly less lazy than Badenoch, and has a surer finger on the pulse of what Conservative-inclined voters care about.
Set against that, there's the whole Tawdry Bob thing.
But the big issues would remain. He was part of the 2019-24 government, and that failed utterly. Farage wasn't. Furthermore, Nigel has started quality in a way that is in a different league.
The problem is that the star quality that Farage has is eerily similar to that of Jeffrey Archer. He has charisma, but he also has no real anchor, neither personal, political, nor-lets face it- moral.
This is a guy who has taken the money to front the Russian state propaganda channel, who has burned through several political parties and eventually fallen out with all his colleagues. He lacks gravitas as much as he lacks anything except the most facile solutions to the mostly fake problems that he identifies, so he is a media creation, not a statesman.
After Trump, I think the danger of these media creations is now far more evident, so although I can certainly see a scenario where Farage does well in the short term, this is more to do with the ongoing death rattle of the Tories than any particular virtues, or lack of them, that Farage has.
In short, am unconvinced that Farage can control his own destiny, and at 61, time is against him.
What preposterous bollox
Farage is nothing like Jeffrey fecking Archer
Farage - like it or not - is a deeply skilled politician who changed British history - by securing Brexit - and now threatens to do it again by taking a new party to second or even first place in a general election
Jeffrey Archer became chairman of the Tory party, wrote some books, went to jail
Farage very nearly crashed the Brexit vote with his illl-judged poster campaign that was all about Me! Me! Me! Frage trying to wrest attention away from the person who REALLY delivered Brexit. Which was Boris Johnson.
A Brexit fronted by Farage would have failed.
So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!
I think my question above is more cogent: under this ruling, what is the function of a GRC? If a person before a GRC has the same rights as a person after a GRC, then what is its function in law?
To distinguish a trans person in equalities law which is distinct from biological sex based on today's judgement
...which then begs the question: what rights does a trans person with a GRC have under equities law that they did not have before getting one? For a GRC to have a function it must confer a state change on the individual (see also marriage certificate). Under this ruling it seems it does not.
Unless you can give me an example of a right that is conferred that is not possessed beforehand?
Someone on the twitter says:
"The GRA was originally drafted to enable trans people to marry people of the same sex. It is redundant now and this ruling makes it even more redundant."
Same dude: "They can still have documents changed and their change of sex can be relevant in some scenarios (e.g. death, pensions), just not with regard to anti discrimination legislation."
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
Not possible. People discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I might not hire someone because they’re a Sunderland fan. Should that be illegal?
If nothing else sounds like a very prudent move on your part.
Kemi going two footed into a 3rd rail issue...seems politically unwise.
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
Good prog about Nick Leeson (on now). Thatcher and her gang really do send the shivers down you.
The UK's version of the US under Trunmp and co now.
Far be it for me to defend "Mrs Fatch", but to be fair to her she didn't attempt a dictatorial coup and she walked when she was told to walk.
Mrs Thatcher abolishing the GLC because Ken Livingstone's banners annoyed her was peevish at best.
Her degradation of local government might have been one of her more malign policies, but it was accomplished through legislation, rather than executive power grab.
I think my question above is more cogent: under this ruling, what is the function of a GRC? If a person before a GRC has the same rights as a person after a GRC, then what is its function in law?
I think there will be a distinction between legal transition and social transitioning.
Trans people will continue to exist, can dress as they choose and have names and pronouns of their choice. I suspect that many will unobtrusively use the toilets of their choice too.
What changes is that they will not be able to force organisations to recognise them in their gender.
It does very much raise the meaning of a GRC, though if a person's documents are all in the new gender then challenging them would require a chromosome analysis. Possible in sport or prison perhaps, but at a restaurant toilets?
I think it goes further than that. I anticipate that gender critical campaigning groups will now press organisations to prevent trans access to the toilets of the choice, with legal recourse to punish those that do. In the world of twitter and social media, there is no "unobtrusively use". Somebody takes a photo, uploads it to Twitter, a lawyer gets involved, an letter before action is sent referring to the EA and today's judgement, the organisation backs down and bans that person, or a court case ensues with the same result.
Legal rights are those you can enforce in a court. If a court says they are unenforceable, they don't exist.
Kemi going two footed into a 3rd rail issue...seems politically unwise.
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
Another straw in the wind of the vibeshift
Only for people who never understood the vibe.
An entirely reasonable and understandable judgment and doesn’t take away from woke at all.
Oh, it is. Woke is a narcissistic philosophy that you can self-identify as whatever you want, your truth is what you perceive it, and you can expect to be treated with deference accordingly. This punctures all of those bubbles.
Your boys are going to have to fall back to your Hindenburg Line.
"The French Interior Ministry says it’s in negotiations with the UK about an agreement to take back some migrants who have crossed the Channel in small boats. But it would involve the UK taking migrants from France under a family reunification scheme on a one-for-one basis."
Very much depends on the details, but it might be worth a go.
It's a bit woke isn't it? I am sure Jenrick would be more far more pragmatic and have them all towed into the mid Atlantic.
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
Another straw in the wind of the vibeshift
Only for people who never understood the vibe.
An entirely reasonable and understandable judgment and doesn’t take away from woke at all.
TOTAL VICTORY FOR TERFS
Now we have to bring down the RNLI
Our son puts his life on the line to save lives at sea in weather you wouldn't believe, and he does it entirely free and that is only because he is part of the RNLI which is highly respected and any normal person would see your comment as utterly distasteful
It’s a frigging joke. I’m making a joke that I’m so dementedly antiWoke I’m determined to crush the communist running dogs manning the lifeboats
It's not a joke in our family who have had several members drowned at sea over the years, and experienced the pain of a loved one never being found or returned to them and who value the RNLI with a passion
Is this true?? You have family members who work in the lifeboats???
My son joined Llandudno RNLI in 2021 and with intensive training, including in Poole, he has advanced to an inshore lifeboat helm [his first command] and inshore lifeboat head launcher and recently passed his tier 1 all weather lifeboat qualification and is on his way to passing tier 2
This is done in his own time, and on 24 hour call in all weather, and he provides his services along with his other dedicated colleagues entirely free but has the same legal liability as any full time RNLI paid crew member including coxswains
This is why I will defend the RNLI against unwarranted attacks
Kemi going two footed into a 3rd rail issue...seems politically unwise.
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!
Latest MIC leadership polling. Amongst 2024 Tory voters barely a third think Badenoch best PM. Farage next most popular, but surprising support for Starmer too.
I suspect if the Tories replaced Badenoch with Honest Bobby J. we would see an exponential change between Ref and Con.
I doubt it. The Conservatives' fundamental problems are:-
they have hardly any MPs left (about 120; they lost 250 MPs last July)
Boris purged a lot of the experienced ones
almost every criticism of Labour at PMQs can be knocked back by Starmer saying the Tories started it (whatever "it" is)
None of that changes under Jenrick.
Although what is the point of Farage when the Tories have Honest Bob (although the opposite is equally applicable)?
Farage offers NOTA. The old parties have failed, try my new panacea (see also Brexit). Jenrick personifies that history of failure – for Farage, for voters, and for Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Jenrick's latest pronouncements are against Islamist gangs running prisons, which, as Starmer will remind everyone, started under the Conservatives, along with prison overcrowding, access to boiling oil and so on and so forth.
Most damning of all, Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.
Jenrick would solve some problems for the Conservatives. He is undoubtedly less lazy than Badenoch, and has a surer finger on the pulse of what Conservative-inclined voters care about.
Set against that, there's the whole Tawdry Bob thing.
But the big issues would remain. He was part of the 2019-24 government, and that failed utterly. Farage wasn't. Furthermore, Nigel has started quality in a way that is in a different league.
The problem is that the star quality that Farage has is eerily similar to that of Jeffrey Archer. He has charisma, but he also has no real anchor, neither personal, political, nor-lets face it- moral.
This is a guy who has taken the money to front the Russian state propaganda channel, who has burned through several political parties and eventually fallen out with all his colleagues. He lacks gravitas as much as he lacks anything except the most facile solutions to the mostly fake problems that he identifies, so he is a media creation, not a statesman.
After Trump, I think the danger of these media creations is now far more evident, so although I can certainly see a scenario where Farage does well in the short term, this is more to do with the ongoing death rattle of the Tories than any particular virtues, or lack of them, that Farage has.
In short, am unconvinced that Farage can control his own destiny, and at 61, time is against him.
What preposterous bollox
Farage is nothing like Jeffrey fecking Archer
Farage - like it or not - is a deeply skilled politician who changed British history - by securing Brexit - and now threatens to do it again by taking a new party to second or even first place in a general election
Jeffrey Archer became chairman of the Tory party, wrote some books, went to jail
Farage very nearly crashed the Brexit vote with his illl-judged poster campaign that was all about Me! Me! Me! Frage trying to wrest attention away from the person who REALLY delivered Brexit. Which was Boris Johnson.
A Brexit fronted by Farage would have failed.
So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!
Farage set it up, Boris put it away. No assist, no goal.
Kemi going two footed into a 3rd rail issue...seems politically unwise.
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!
To be fair, this is one thing where Kemi should feel vindicated.
She's been saying this for a long time, and copping the flak accordingly.
There are ways of doing it though. She could easily have sent a more moderate tweet saying the court have come to a sensible decision and it is a position I have supported for a long time (and if you really want to go political, one Labour / Starmer didn't). We now need to move forward.
Kemi going two footed into a 3rd rail issue...seems politically unwise.
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
Not possible. People discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I might not hire someone because they’re a Sunderland fan. Should that be illegal?
Thanks. Fair question. You point out that the law cannot affirmatively cover all cases of performative injustice - you cannot have an infinity of the Mackems Act 2025 - in the sense of providing a comprehensive list.
My reply is that because this is true the law should not try to do what, as you affirm, is impossible. If parliament wants the law to cover the issue of discrimination in hiring then it should outlaw it in generic terms, and describe what is the proper process to follow in all cases.
To do otherwise is to create two tier rights. Which is exactly what we have done.
Latest MIC leadership polling. Amongst 2024 Tory voters barely a third think Badenoch best PM. Farage next most popular, but surprising support for Starmer too.
I suspect if the Tories replaced Badenoch with Honest Bobby J. we would see an exponential change between Ref and Con.
I doubt it. The Conservatives' fundamental problems are:-
they have hardly any MPs left (about 120; they lost 250 MPs last July)
Boris purged a lot of the experienced ones
almost every criticism of Labour at PMQs can be knocked back by Starmer saying the Tories started it (whatever "it" is)
None of that changes under Jenrick.
Although what is the point of Farage when the Tories have Honest Bob (although the opposite is equally applicable)?
Farage offers NOTA. The old parties have failed, try my new panacea (see also Brexit). Jenrick personifies that history of failure – for Farage, for voters, and for Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Jenrick's latest pronouncements are against Islamist gangs running prisons, which, as Starmer will remind everyone, started under the Conservatives, along with prison overcrowding, access to boiling oil and so on and so forth.
Most damning of all, Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.
Jenrick would solve some problems for the Conservatives. He is undoubtedly less lazy than Badenoch, and has a surer finger on the pulse of what Conservative-inclined voters care about.
Set against that, there's the whole Tawdry Bob thing.
But the big issues would remain. He was part of the 2019-24 government, and that failed utterly. Farage wasn't. Furthermore, Nigel has started quality in a way that is in a different league.
The problem is that the star quality that Farage has is eerily similar to that of Jeffrey Archer. He has charisma, but he also has no real anchor, neither personal, political, nor-lets face it- moral.
This is a guy who has taken the money to front the Russian state propaganda channel, who has burned through several political parties and eventually fallen out with all his colleagues. He lacks gravitas as much as he lacks anything except the most facile solutions to the mostly fake problems that he identifies, so he is a media creation, not a statesman.
After Trump, I think the danger of these media creations is now far more evident, so although I can certainly see a scenario where Farage does well in the short term, this is more to do with the ongoing death rattle of the Tories than any particular virtues, or lack of them, that Farage has.
In short, am unconvinced that Farage can control his own destiny, and at 61, time is against him.
What preposterous bollox
Farage is nothing like Jeffrey fecking Archer
Farage - like it or not - is a deeply skilled politician who changed British history - by securing Brexit - and now threatens to do it again by taking a new party to second or even first place in a general election
Jeffrey Archer became chairman of the Tory party, wrote some books, went to jail
Farage very nearly crashed the Brexit vote with his illl-judged poster campaign that was all about Me! Me! Me! Frage trying to wrest attention away from the person who REALLY delivered Brexit. Which was Boris Johnson.
A Brexit fronted by Farage would have failed.
So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!
imo Boris was a Remainer pretending to be a Leaver, while Theresa May was a Leaver pretending to be a Remainer. But then how to classify Cameron and perhaps even most at the top, who were Eurosceptic Remainers with no idealistic attachment to the European project but wanted to stay in for pragmatic reasons.
Latest MIC leadership polling. Amongst 2024 Tory voters barely a third think Badenoch best PM. Farage next most popular, but surprising support for Starmer too.
I suspect if the Tories replaced Badenoch with Honest Bobby J. we would see an exponential change between Ref and Con.
I doubt it. The Conservatives' fundamental problems are:-
they have hardly any MPs left (about 120; they lost 250 MPs last July)
Boris purged a lot of the experienced ones
almost every criticism of Labour at PMQs can be knocked back by Starmer saying the Tories started it (whatever "it" is)
None of that changes under Jenrick.
Although what is the point of Farage when the Tories have Honest Bob (although the opposite is equally applicable)?
Farage offers NOTA. The old parties have failed, try my new panacea (see also Brexit). Jenrick personifies that history of failure – for Farage, for voters, and for Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Jenrick's latest pronouncements are against Islamist gangs running prisons, which, as Starmer will remind everyone, started under the Conservatives, along with prison overcrowding, access to boiling oil and so on and so forth.
Most damning of all, Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.
Jenrick would solve some problems for the Conservatives. He is undoubtedly less lazy than Badenoch, and has a surer finger on the pulse of what Conservative-inclined voters care about.
Set against that, there's the whole Tawdry Bob thing.
But the big issues would remain. He was part of the 2019-24 government, and that failed utterly. Farage wasn't. Furthermore, Nigel has started quality in a way that is in a different league.
The problem is that the star quality that Farage has is eerily similar to that of Jeffrey Archer. He has charisma, but he also has no real anchor, neither personal, political, nor-lets face it- moral.
This is a guy who has taken the money to front the Russian state propaganda channel, who has burned through several political parties and eventually fallen out with all his colleagues. He lacks gravitas as much as he lacks anything except the most facile solutions to the mostly fake problems that he identifies, so he is a media creation, not a statesman.
After Trump, I think the danger of these media creations is now far more evident, so although I can certainly see a scenario where Farage does well in the short term, this is more to do with the ongoing death rattle of the Tories than any particular virtues, or lack of them, that Farage has.
In short, am unconvinced that Farage can control his own destiny, and at 61, time is against him.
What preposterous bollox
Farage is nothing like Jeffrey fecking Archer
Farage - like it or not - is a deeply skilled politician who changed British history - by securing Brexit - and now threatens to do it again by taking a new party to second or even first place in a general election
Jeffrey Archer became chairman of the Tory party, wrote some books, went to jail
Farage very nearly crashed the Brexit vote with his illl-judged poster campaign that was all about Me! Me! Me! Frage trying to wrest attention away from the person who REALLY delivered Brexit. Which was Boris Johnson.
A Brexit fronted by Farage would have failed.
So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!
Farage set it up, Boris put it away. No assist, no goal.
Good point. But the finish was pure Madonna "hand of God" stuff.
"The French Interior Ministry says it’s in negotiations with the UK about an agreement to take back some migrants who have crossed the Channel in small boats. But it would involve the UK taking migrants from France under a family reunification scheme on a one-for-one basis."
Very much depends on the details, but it might be worth a go.
It's a bit woke isn't it? I am sure Jenrick would be more far more pragmatic and have them all towed into the mid Atlantic.
It’s curious that the actual occasions on which the Greeks and Italians have *killed* migrants on boats - including by trying to tow a boat out of territorial waters - go unnoticed by those frotting themselves at the thought of a Conservative government doing so.
Kemi going two footed into a 3rd rail issue...seems politically unwise.
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!
To be fair, this is one thing where Kemi should feel vindicated.
She's been saying this for a long time, and copping the flak accordingly.
There are ways of doing it though. She could easily have sent a more moderate tweet saying the court have come to a sensible decision and it is a position I have supported for a long time (and if you really want to go political, one Labour / Starmer didn't). We now need to move forward.
The entirety of her world view is the right wing X-osphere. If it's important in that milieu, it's important to her.
This is good for her though. As, in the highly unlikely event she makes it to a GE, this was the type of stupid shit on which she would have burned a lot of campaign time.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
Kemi going two footed into a 3rd rail issue...seems politically unwise.
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!
To be fair, this is one thing where Kemi should feel vindicated.
She's been saying this for a long time, and copping the flak accordingly.
There are ways of doing it though. She could easily have sent a more moderate tweet saying the court have come to a sensible decision and it is a position I have supported for a long time (and if you really want to go political, one Labour / Starmer didn't). We now need to move forward.
The entirety of her world view is the right wing X-osphere. If it's important in that milieu, it's important to her.
This is good for her though. As, in the highly unlikely event she makes it to a GE, this was the type of stupid shit on which she would have burned a lot of campaign time.
I think this issue is wider than just right wing tw@tter. Mumsnet, a traditionally centrist mum / soft left forum, has been very concerned about all of this and the owner took a stance that lost advertisers for not being onboard with trans rights agenda.
I think the trans rights row is a classic demonstration of the need for a blank sheet of paper approach to some issues. Today's ruling was going to provoke a row regardless of how they ruled - people are stuck at micro level detail whereas we need to go all the way back through macro to strategic.
What is a woman? What is a man? I note that the ruling says the answer is "self-evident" and if we're all honest for a second it absolutely is.
I hope that we can now move forward with more nuanced policy discussions. Absolutely supporting the rights of trans men and women, which not trampling the absolute rights of women to be safe *and feel safe* from the direct threat posed to them by men.
Absolutism and black and white definitions are the problem - but all of these are downstream from the basic "what is a man/woman" question which has become both nonsensical and an attack stick rather than a viable discussion point. I hope that we can set aside the culture wars and go back to decent civility.
How do we do that? The court asked for basic respect to be given to its judgement and I would roll that back further. Give respect to views on all sides and tell the angry shouting extremists on both sides to STFU.
...Woke is a narcissistic philosophy that you can self-identify as whatever you want, your truth is what you perceive it, and you can expect to be treated with deference accordingly. This punctures all of those bubbles....
Perhaps you may appreciate an article in which I point out that the difference between liberalism and hyperliberalism is the introduction of self-constructed identities? Just sayin...
"The French Interior Ministry says it’s in negotiations with the UK about an agreement to take back some migrants who have crossed the Channel in small boats. But it would involve the UK taking migrants from France under a family reunification scheme on a one-for-one basis."
Very much depends on the details, but it might be worth a go.
It's a bit woke isn't it? I am sure Jenrick would be more far more pragmatic and have them all towed into the mid Atlantic.
It’s curious that the actual occasions on which the Greeks and Italians have *killed* migrants on boats - including by trying to tow a boat out of territorial waters - go unnoticed by those frotting themselves at the thought of a Conservative government doing so.
The Italians and the Greeks have had their cards marked by me. I am just musing that Mr Jenrick will likely stop at no stunt to demonstrate an industrial level of performative cruelty. Women and children on board first?
Kemi going two footed into a 3rd rail issue...seems politically unwise.
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!
To be fair, this is one thing where Kemi should feel vindicated.
She's been saying this for a long time, and copping the flak accordingly.
There are ways of doing it though. She could easily have sent a more moderate tweet saying the court have come to a sensible decision and it is a position I have supported for a long time (and if you really want to go political, one Labour / Starmer didn't). We now need to move forward.
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
Worth remembering, though, that the protected characteristics generally encompass everyone. So I, a heterosexual white middle-aged man, am protected from discrimination based on my sexuality, race, age and gender. It's just that, whatever the Daily Mail and keyboard warriors of the world say, my protected characteristics don't in the real world give rise to me being on the wrong end of discrimination all that often.
...Woke is a narcissistic philosophy that you can self-identify as whatever you want, your truth is what you perceive it, and you can expect to be treated with deference accordingly. This punctures all of those bubbles....
Perhaps you may appreciate an article in which I point out that the difference between liberalism and hyperliberalism is the introduction of self-constructed identities? Just sayin...
I'd appreciate that and have been thinking about a similar article myself!
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
Not possible. People discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I might not hire someone because they’re a Sunderland fan. Should that be illegal?
If nothing else sounds like a very prudent move on your part.
OTOH there may be no limits to how much you would like to find out from your employees about the FA cup season 1972-1973. Some people will never have heard of Ian Porterfield and need to get up to speed.
'The Scottish Government accepts today’s Supreme Court judgement. The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.'
I think the trans rights row is a classic demonstration of the need for a blank sheet of paper approach to some issues. Today's ruling was going to provoke a row regardless of how they ruled - people are stuck at micro level detail whereas we need to go all the way back through macro to strategic.
What is a woman? What is a man? I note that the ruling says the answer is "self-evident" and if we're all honest for a second it absolutely is.
I hope that we can now move forward with more nuanced policy discussions. Absolutely supporting the rights of trans men and women, which not trampling the absolute rights of women to be safe *and feel safe* from the direct threat posed to them by men.
Absolutism and black and white definitions are the problem - but all of these are downstream from the basic "what is a man/woman" question which has become both nonsensical and an attack stick rather than a viable discussion point. I hope that we can set aside the culture wars and go back to decent civility.
How do we do that? The court asked for basic respect to be given to its judgement and I would roll that back further. Give respect to views on all sides and tell the angry shouting extremists on both sides to STFU.
Remind me again what *are* the rights of trans men and women? Specifically, what rights do they have after a GRC that they did not have before?
A right is something you can enforce in a court. If you can't enforce it, it's not a right.
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
We all have protected characteristics, so I’m unclear what you are disturbed about? Protected characteristics are things like gender: people have different genders, but everyone has a gender. Likewise age: people have different ages, but everyone has an age. What’s the problem?
I think the trans rights row is a classic demonstration of the need for a blank sheet of paper approach to some issues. Today's ruling was going to provoke a row regardless of how they ruled - people are stuck at micro level detail whereas we need to go all the way back through macro to strategic.
What is a woman? What is a man? I note that the ruling says the answer is "self-evident" and if we're all honest for a second it absolutely is.
I hope that we can now move forward with more nuanced policy discussions. Absolutely supporting the rights of trans men and women, which not trampling the absolute rights of women to be safe *and feel safe* from the direct threat posed to them by men.
Absolutism and black and white definitions are the problem - but all of these are downstream from the basic "what is a man/woman" question which has become both nonsensical and an attack stick rather than a viable discussion point. I hope that we can set aside the culture wars and go back to decent civility.
How do we do that? The court asked for basic respect to be given to its judgement and I would roll that back further. Give respect to views on all sides and tell the angry shouting extremists on both sides to STFU.
The traditional, progressive, approach is that the protected group should “win” when there is an intersection of rights. It’s the simple answer that avoids thinking or appearing to compromise.
In this case, some of the people in two protected groups wanted conflicting things.
So the mindless “I’m with the protected group” position doesn’t work. It requires thought, care and compromise.
Which pressure groups of any kind are spectacularly bad at.
For information in case it helps, buried away at para 265 of the SC judgment is a summary of their reasoning in a quickfire 18 points. It is not easy (pace Jolyon) to argue that they are acting irrationally or that the position is not arguable.
Kemi going two footed into a 3rd rail issue...seems politically unwise.
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!
To be fair, this is one thing where Kemi should feel vindicated.
She's been saying this for a long time, and copping the flak accordingly.
There are ways of doing it though. She could easily have sent a more moderate tweet saying the court have come to a sensible decision and it is a position I have supported for a long time (and if you really want to go political, one Labour / Starmer didn't). We now need to move forward.
She could, but Kemi fires from the hip.
Unfortunately, she often leaves the gun in its holster, so it's pointing at her foot.
"The French Interior Ministry says it’s in negotiations with the UK about an agreement to take back some migrants who have crossed the Channel in small boats. But it would involve the UK taking migrants from France under a family reunification scheme on a one-for-one basis."
Very much depends on the details, but it might be worth a go.
It's a bit woke isn't it? I am sure Jenrick would be more far more pragmatic and have them all towed into the mid Atlantic.
It’s curious that the actual occasions on which the Greeks and Italians have *killed* migrants on boats - including by trying to tow a boat out of territorial waters - go unnoticed by those frotting themselves at the thought of a Conservative government doing so.
The Italians and the Greeks have had their cards marked by me. I am just musing that Mr Jenrick will likely stop at no stunt to demonstrate an industrial level of performative cruelty. Women and children on board first?
Jenerick had a mural painted over.
He was also part of a government that forward deployed the coast guard and other assets to the edge of French waters, so that the boats were not left in distress for hours. This included using military aircraft to track the boats.
The Greeks and Italians have continued their policy of not rescuing (where they can get away with it) in international waters. Which kills people quite regularly. They also continue to fund the “Libyan Coastguard” - which kidnaps would be boat people, imprisons and enslaves them.
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
Not possible. People discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I might not hire someone because they’re a Sunderland fan. Should that be illegal?
Thanks. Fair question. You point out that the law cannot affirmatively cover all cases of performative injustice - you cannot have an infinity of the Mackems Act 2025 - in the sense of providing a comprehensive list.
My reply is that because this is true the law should not try to do what, as you affirm, is impossible. If parliament wants the law to cover the issue of discrimination in hiring then it should outlaw it in generic terms, and describe what is the proper process to follow in all cases.
To do otherwise is to create two tier rights. Which is exactly what we have done.
Certain types of discrimination is necessary for society to continue to function.
For example, an accountant needs to have educational qualifications in accounting. An employer who rejects an applicant who does not have accounting qualifications is discriminating against the educationally unqualified. Lack of educational qualifications is an "unprotected characteristic".
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
You are right. It is in theory possible to have the lot.
"Sick of all the woke shit. In this country if you're not a transitioning black muslim disabled pregnant unmarried lesbian you can't get a job at all. And if you complain about it they throw you in prison."
Scott MacFarlane @MacFarlaneNews · 56m Sen Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is at Dulles International airport .. en route to El Salvador on mission to get access to Kilmar Abrego Garcia
"The French Interior Ministry says it’s in negotiations with the UK about an agreement to take back some migrants who have crossed the Channel in small boats. But it would involve the UK taking migrants from France under a family reunification scheme on a one-for-one basis."
Very much depends on the details, but it might be worth a go.
It's a bit woke isn't it? I am sure Jenrick would be more far more pragmatic and have them all towed into the mid Atlantic.
It’s curious that the actual occasions on which the Greeks and Italians have *killed* migrants on boats - including by trying to tow a boat out of territorial waters - go unnoticed by those frotting themselves at the thought of a Conservative government doing so.
The Italians and the Greeks have had their cards marked by me. I am just musing that Mr Jenrick will likely stop at no stunt to demonstrate an industrial level of performative cruelty. Women and children on board first?
Jenerick had a mural painted over.
He was also part of a government that forward deployed the coast guard and other assets to the edge of French waters, so that the boats were not left in distress for hours. This included using military aircraft to track the boats.
The Greeks and Italians have continued their policy of not rescuing (where they can get away with it) in international waters. Which kills people quite regularly. They also continue to fund the “Libyan Coastguard” - which kidnaps would be boat people, imprisons and enslaves them.
He also left that Government because their small boats immigration touch was too light.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
On atheism, the Equality Act says "Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion". It's also established as falling under "belief".
It's also worth noting you can actually be protected in some circumstances even if you don't have a protected characteristic. For example, if you were a somewhat feminine looking man or masculine looking woman, and you were harrassed for being transexual, you'd be protected under "gender reassignment" even though you'd not fall in the definition (and those harrassing you may well know perfectly well you don't).
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
Not possible. People discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I might not hire someone because they’re a Sunderland fan. Should that be illegal?
Thanks. Fair question. You point out that the law cannot affirmatively cover all cases of performative injustice - you cannot have an infinity of the Mackems Act 2025 - in the sense of providing a comprehensive list.
My reply is that because this is true the law should not try to do what, as you affirm, is impossible. If parliament wants the law to cover the issue of discrimination in hiring then it should outlaw it in generic terms, and describe what is the proper process to follow in all cases.
To do otherwise is to create two tier rights. Which is exactly what we have done.
Certain types of discrimination is necessary for society to continue to function.
For example, an accountant needs to have educational qualifications in accounting. An employer who rejects an applicant who does not have accounting qualifications is discriminating against the educationally unqualified. Lack of educational qualifications is an "unprotected characteristic".
But, SFAICS, so is being a Tranmere supporter an unprotected characteristic, or having artificially green hair. These seem not to advance the welfare of society all that much. Your point about qualifications is clear enough of course.
All I am saying is that if the law wants to prevent discrimination is should do so generically.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
For information in case it helps, buried away at para 265 of the SC judgment is a summary of their reasoning in a quickfire 18 points. It is not easy (pace Jolyon) to argue that they are acting irrationally or that the position is not arguable.
Para 265 is two pages long and cannot be described as "quickfire"
However I note para (xv) "...Similar incoherence and impracticability arise in the operations of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces..."
What are the implications for UK trans warfighters?
Comments
Inarguable cases do not go before the Supreme Court.
Jolyon is more activist than lawyer.
Try looking up the effects of the “Railway Mania” for example.
Modernising the markets was not the issue. That kind of “fuck up and hide the losses” has happened many, many times. The problem was relying on personal trust.
Women, for example.
Very much depends on the details, but it might be worth a go.
(1) The old guard - Rory, Gauke, Grieve etc - are clearly backing them (2) They have a phalanx of front bench people - about eight would do - who are statesmen and women and look like a Tory government in waiting and are on all the media all the time (3) They learn to communicate with the thoughtful and to Mail readers at the same time.
Putting Lord Hodge in charge was a one of those nuances the Supreme Court/HoL have used over time.
As regards the GRC, suppose they can frame it but ultimately it will make no real difference about how the majority of LGBTQI live their lives.
For example
1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme.
2) You find a KC who, for a fee, creates an opinion that the scheme is valid.
3) You sell this scheme to people, on the basis of said legal opinion and rake in huge fees
4) The scheme is judged to be bollocks and the clients from 3) are taxed and fined.
5) There is no recourse against the KC, since his opinion didn’t cause any problems for *you* the actual client.
1) You create a tax… minimisation scheme.
Trebles all round.
Not.
I still remember paying a very eminent tax QC £10k for a one-off consult in which he gave entirely the opposing view to the one he had given in an equally expensive opinion to a business competitor of my client. He just told each of us what we wanted to hear, in the most silky smooth tones.
This is not to deny there is in general a vibe shift towards less enlightened attitudes. Clearly there is. It's just that this is not a good example of it. This was about logic, consistency and coherence in statute.
Honestly, this place.
https://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/resources/news/view/devereux-chambers-announces-the-arrival-of-tax-specialist-jolyon-maugham
Rog keeping his batting average up of being wrong on everything (other than Oscar predictions).
EY faces investigation over Post Office Horizon audit
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg2qdeegy7o
Now for the programmers, the solicitors, the board and the IT staff…
Unless you can give me an example of a right that is conferred that is not possessed beforehand?
An arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court
Which test, IMO, the present case passes effortlessly.
Trans people will continue to exist, can dress as they choose and have names and pronouns of their choice. I suspect that many will unobtrusively use the toilets of their choice too.
What changes is that they will not be able to force organisations to recognise them in their gender.
It does very much raise the meaning of a GRC, though if a person's documents are all in the new gender then challenging them would require a chromosome analysis. Possible in sport or prison perhaps, but at a restaurant toilets?
"The GRA was originally drafted to enable trans people to marry people of the same sex. It is redundant now and this ruling makes it even more redundant."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/22/former-rogue-trader-nick-leeson-joins-corporate-private-eye-firm
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1912443184161886669
Legal rights are those you can enforce in a court. If a court says they are unenforceable, they don't exist.
Your boys are going to have to fall back to your Hindenburg Line.
This is done in his own time, and on 24 hour call in all weather, and he provides his services along with his other dedicated colleagues entirely free but has the same legal liability as any full time RNLI paid crew member including coxswains
This is why I will defend the RNLI against unwarranted attacks
She's been saying this for a long time, and copping the flak accordingly.
https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1912453219202093284?s=61
My reply is that because this is true the law should not try to do what, as you affirm, is impossible. If parliament wants the law to cover the issue of discrimination in hiring then it should outlaw it in generic terms, and describe what is the proper process to follow in all cases.
To do otherwise is to create two tier rights. Which is exactly what we have done.
This is good for her though. As, in the highly unlikely event she makes it to a GE, this was the type of stupid shit on which she would have burned a lot of campaign time.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
This is unusual:
At 2:20 PM, there was an $8 million spike in puts on the Nasdaq 100 ETF.
4 hours later, the US banned Nvidia, $NVDA, from selling their H20 chips to China.
The Nasdaq is now down nearly -300 points since.
Someone always knows.
https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1912274045887783040
What is a woman? What is a man? I note that the ruling says the answer is "self-evident" and if we're all honest for a second it absolutely is.
I hope that we can now move forward with more nuanced policy discussions. Absolutely supporting the rights of trans men and women, which not trampling the absolute rights of women to be safe *and feel safe* from the direct threat posed to them by men.
Absolutism and black and white definitions are the problem - but all of these are downstream from the basic "what is a man/woman" question which has become both nonsensical and an attack stick rather than a viable discussion point. I hope that we can set aside the culture wars and go back to decent civility.
How do we do that? The court asked for basic respect to be given to its judgement and I would roll that back further. Give respect to views on all sides and tell the angry shouting extremists on both sides to STFU.
So Labour most seats but likely a Reform and Conservative government has a majority
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=23&LAB=24&LIB=14&Reform=24&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/why-trump-will-lose-his-trade-war?img=https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/4f1de681-6065-40d9-8903-4c69743eb771_5500x3798.jpeg&open=false
https://x.com/JohnSwinney/status/1912461889403036052
A right is something you can enforce in a court. If you can't enforce it, it's not a right.
In this case, some of the people in two protected groups wanted conflicting things.
So the mindless “I’m with the protected group” position doesn’t work. It requires thought, care and compromise.
Which pressure groups of any kind are spectacularly bad at.
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
He was also part of a government that forward deployed the coast guard and other assets to the edge of French waters, so that the boats were not left in distress for hours. This included using military aircraft to track the boats.
The Greeks and Italians have continued their policy of not rescuing (where they can get away with it) in international waters. Which kills people quite regularly. They also continue to fund the “Libyan Coastguard” - which kidnaps would be boat people, imprisons and enslaves them.
For example, an accountant needs to have educational qualifications in accounting. An employer who rejects an applicant who does not have accounting qualifications is discriminating against the educationally unqualified. Lack of educational qualifications is an "unprotected characteristic".
"Sick of all the woke shit. In this country if you're not a transitioning black muslim disabled pregnant unmarried lesbian you can't get a job at all. And if you complain about it they throw you in prison."
@MacFarlaneNews
·
56m
Sen Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is at Dulles International airport .. en route to El Salvador on mission to get access to Kilmar Abrego Garcia
It's also worth noting you can actually be protected in some circumstances even if you don't have a protected characteristic. For example, if you were a somewhat feminine looking man or masculine looking woman, and you were harrassed for being transexual, you'd be protected under "gender reassignment" even though you'd not fall in the definition (and those harrassing you may well know perfectly well you don't).
All I am saying is that if the law wants to prevent discrimination is should do so generically.
However I note para (xv) "...Similar incoherence and impracticability arise in the operations of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces..."
What are the implications for UK trans warfighters?