It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
More about age. Younger people in general are more likely to support trans inclusion.
And this is where extremism continues to rear its ugly head. Lets play your scenario: Trans woman uses female toilet Well-funded activist group sues
How would the case go?
The complainant (assuming standing) would win and be awarded damages. How else do you think it will go?
I appreciate you think that there is some woolly compromise, but the law is the law and there is no "your friend Lauren" exception. According to the law as it now stands "your friend Lauren" can piss in the Ladies only until somebody brings a case, and then she'll have to piss in the Gents until she dies.
I will never understand the belief, prevalent on PB, that people think the law doesn't apply to them.
I never understand why they don't just get on with their lives. This all started because they started complaining that they were offended etc, nobody previously had ever cared about till the weirdos in the SNP thought it would buy them some votes. They caused total outrage and now it is a lot worse for Trans than it was previously. FFS just go into a toilet and get on with it.
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
More about age. Younger people in general are more likely to support trans inclusion.
More about easily offended woke idiots who feel entitled to trash other people's rights because they imagine they are special and can do as they wish.
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
More about age. Younger people in general are more likely to support trans inclusion.
Not true. Younger people are over it.
Millennials are uniquely brainwashed by this stuff IMO. Gen Z are unbothered Gen X are broadly against men in women's spaces/sports and older people very much against. It's changing slowly as more cases of men in dresses using transgenderism to abuse women come out, but it's slow.
My friend Lauren will physically transition to be physically female. By which point I would hope that even the most strident activists wouldn't be demanding that a biologically transformed woman be denied entry to certain toilets etc.
I think that's naive. The entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that i) one's status is settled at birth and does not change, and ii) single-sex spaces are based on the status at birth. There is no "my friend Lauren" exception.
As I pointed out to you the other day, if somebody like "my friend Lauren" used a single-sex female toilet, then the organizers of that toilet could be sued and under the new ruling the organizers would lose.
Perhaps more toilets will be converted into unisex, which has occurred in an M&S near us?
Will trans men be forced to use female toilets? Will females be upset by them as well?
That is a question. This is Balian Buschbaum, a pole vaulter.
Do you think Balian should be using the male or female toilets?
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
Polling shows that the gender critical campaigns have worked very well on the public - they are becoming more trans-sceptic over time, but also that women continue to have less anti-trans views than men.
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
Polling shows that the gender critical campaigns have worked very well on the public - they are becoming more trans-sceptic over time, but also that women continue to have less anti-trans views than men.
There's also a very obvious age dependency evident in the link you posted, which also reflects my own experience. My son and step daughter and their friends (20s) are far more accepting of gender fluidity than my own peers (50s).
Ruth Deyermond @ruthdeyermond.bsky.social · 57m So the Trump administration are saying that unless Europe accepts their plan to help Russia they'll...help Russia. If you're trying to get people to do what you want, it generally helps if your carrot is different from your stick.
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
More about age. Younger people in general are more likely to support trans inclusion.
Not true. Younger people are over it.
Judging by my very own kids? - yes. Definitely over it. Indeed already slightly embarrassed by their own madness
My friend Lauren will physically transition to be physically female. By which point I would hope that even the most strident activists wouldn't be demanding that a biologically transformed woman be denied entry to certain toilets etc.
I think that's naive. The entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that i) one's status is settled at birth and does not change, and ii) single-sex spaces are based on the status at birth. There is no "my friend Lauren" exception.
As I pointed out to you the other day, if somebody like "my friend Lauren" used a single-sex female toilet, then the organizers of that toilet could be sued and under the new ruling the organizers would lose.
Perhaps more toilets will be converted into unisex, which has occurred in an M&S near us?
Will trans men be forced to use female toilets? Will females be upset by them as well?
That is a question. This is Balian Buschbaum, a pole vaulter.
Do you think Balian should be using the male or female toilets?
You're implying that people should be considerate of others' reactions based on whether or not they 'pass'.
As an inveterate asker of questions you seem a little disdainful of the questions of others. *In best williamglen voice* Which toilet do you think Balian should use?
It would be cruel to make him use a urinal.
I'm not sure what the pole vaulter's arangements are, but I believe an operating penis (as far as peeing anyway) can be constructed?
many men don't use urinals anyway so the pole vaulter can use a cubicle
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
It is not even just the issue. Insofar as this non-lawyer of very little brain can understand the judgment, it looks confused in some places and incomplete in others. In short, it looks like the Supreme Court Justices have done what the rest of us do, reach for their own prejudices and work backwards from there.
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
More about age. Younger people in general are more likely to support trans inclusion.
Not true. Younger people are over it.
Judging by my very own kids? - yes. Definitely over it. Indeed already slightly embarrassed by their own madness
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
Yes, it’s over. Anyone trying to avoid the law will now face extremely hefty fines - then bankruptcy. It’s doesn’t get much more OVER than that. There are no higher courts to appeal to
Interesting but hardly surprising to see Trump and Meloni apparently getting on well.
Both are strong on "immigration" which is apparently at the root of all Europe's problems.
Yet I hear no practical or coherent solutions - from "stop the boats" to "re-migration", there's a lot of people talking about immigration and saying something needs to be done but I've not heard a syllable of a practical and workable solution.
More "complaints" from Britain's greatest bunch of whingers, GB News, about Sudanese refugees at a 4* hotel - okay, fine. How do you get them out of that hotel? Where do you put them while their asylum cases are being processed? I'm led to believe (it's GB News so I take it with a bucketful of salt) there are thousands more waiting in Northern France to cross the Channel. Right - how do you prevent them crossing if that's the objective?
The whole debate is couched in sensationalist, fear mongering terms - practicality and common sense are noticeable by their absence.
Is this a serious question?
Or is it another 'what are these Brexit freedoms I hear so much about?', and then you list them, and silence, and then a week or so later - 'So who can list me a single Brexit freedom?'
If it is a serious question, you can do a number of things.
If our grant rate is three times that of France, where are you going to apply? We could do that by capping asylum figures. That could be done now.
Secondly, you could stop paying France eye watering millions upfront for what seems like zero assistance, and pay them on results - per boats destroyed, migrants detained, smugglers arrested.
Thirdly, you can detain migrants in basic purpose-built or hired accommodation. Airbases, barges. The hotels have to stop. A warm bed, safety, cleanliness and food is what someone claiming asylum should be entitled to, nothing else.
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda. To make the latter work, you probably need to leave the ECHR. To make the former work, you don't necessarily, because there's no danger of refoulement if the successful claimants are shipped back to the UK.
Fifthly, you can actually go after the people smugglers. It took a massive BBC investigation to get the police to get their finger out of their arse and arrest the last one.
Sixthly, you can do tow backs. This is a cruel to be kind solution, as it does place boat people in a very stressful situation. It does have the upside of being a massive disincentive to ever get on a channel crossing, so in the long run probably save lives.
Want me to continue?
This is unworkable performative crap and I'm sure Lucky knows this. 1. "Cap asylum numbers" - the only point which isn't unreasonable 2. "Stop paying France" - with what is proposed below? 3. "Detain migrants in gulags" - where? Remember that the Tory government proposed this using disused airbases, only to have Tory MPs - some very senior - scream and howl. The proposal is to build fortified open prison camps, so again my question is where? Staffed by whom? Secured by whom? At what cost? 4. "Oversees processing" at which point he comedically refers to Rwanda which was not oversees processing. I have no objection in principle, but again, where? Staffed by whom? And what is the domestic legal process to render people from the UK to wherever when our courts are underfunded and partially functional? 5. "Go after the people smugglers" - the option the Tories endlessly decried. This is a great idea. Many are in France. Ah, we told france to fuck off in point 2 and are about to do worse in point 6. 6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
You don't need to continue. Your proposals are crayon politics, drawn by a small child in red crayon. As always, the key to policy is that it actually has to be deliverable. Actionable. Realistic, not just "can't we tell these foreigners to fuck off".
Its a great insight into the coming Reform manifesto and deserved further commentary.
If my points were 'unworkable performative crap', you wouldn't need to respond with asinine misrepresentations or mealy mouthed acknowledgements disguised as rebukes.
I have not said 'stop paying France' have I? I have said payments should be set up in a different way that is dependent on results. You take the estimated impact on the boats of the current grants under the 'deal'. You translate that into a price per boat destroyed, smuggler arrested etc., and you agree to pay that per evidence of each outcome - you could agree to pay more than the 'going rate' as an incentive. Payment on delivery.
The previous Government already detained asylum seekers in a barge. It was perfectly servicable and comfortable. The current Government ended that - that is performative. As for other facilities, yes nimbys and Tory constituency MPs were against them - since when is that an objection for you?
Rwanda could easily have been used as a processing centre. The Government could have done so - it would have been sufficiently different from the Tories' policy 'more humane, more just' to be do-able politically. Instead they pathetically scrapped the whole scheme to make an infantile party political point, and then went bizarrely to 'learn from Claudia Meloni' on overseas processing.
Nobody EVER decried the concept of going after people smugglers, what a bizarre lie. 'Smash the gangs' was criticised as the sole strategy for solving illegal migration, and that criticism has proven valid in the event. However, even with it being the sole strategy, the police are quite clearly doing a shit job, which is why they got shown up by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pyyqep831o
I suspect Yvette Cooper is 'not getting involved in operational matters', and if she doesn't have the levers to give the police a rocket over this, she needs to get them.
Towbacks and overseas processing worked in Australia. And they are far more dangerous there. I don't see what objection France could have - they were quite clearly OK with them being in French waters, as they allowed them without hindrance. So yes, they would go back to France. And if boats don't get through, no more boats come.
Morning luv! I'm picking apart specifically to demonstrate that its unworkable crap.
Most amusing is that you're still clinging to Rwanda as something that could have worked.
The depressing thing is that you have zero interest in actually tackling the pan-European migration crisis. You just want to score political points.
No, I want the issue solved and put to bed, as it has been in Australia. Where they put the necessary policies in place (against screaming leftist objections naturally), none of which involved handwringing global summits to discuss the 'pan-pacific migrant crisis'.
If Rwanda was unworkable, why is the Government actively discussed other overseas solutions? Why did they go to Meloni to 'learn' about her policy of processing in Albania? Making it up as they go along, much like you.
The missing piece of the puzzle compared to Australia is the British equivalent of Christmas Island. The logistics of sending refugees abroad is not simple and you need somewhere beyond the reach of the legal-industrial complex to warehouse them while it gets organised.
Rwanda was only one element of the Australian solution and, on its own, probably wouldn't have been workable.
Big Rish and the Gang knew all this of course. The entire policy was just something to distract red wall morons from the fact that 95%+ of the Brexitwave immigration were legal entries that the tories could have reduced any time they wanted.
Once again, I will propose my solution - West Falkland. Anyone arriving without proper paperwork gets sent there.
British so no trouble with courts.
It should be a state of the art facility with good accommodation. No need for barbed wire because there's nowhere else to go. You can't leave except for the ferry and the operator will know all the residents personally and can just turn anyone else away.
You are free to leave any time you like, once you get another passport.
The weather is crap so anyone who doesn't want to be there won't tolerate it but genuine asylum seekers will be happy to wait for a year.
(Ideally this should also be accompanied by measures to make it easier for genuine asylum seekers to seek it nearer home).
If you think it's expensive to lock them up in hotels - it is - then you're going to be dismayed by the costing of that scheme.
Some years ago I was very anti trans people. That was until (when I was a councillor) I attended a talk organised by the Council given by a trans person who was transitioning from male to female. She told us about the psychological issues she endured. Many people transitioning attempt suicide - may be a call for help or a serious attempt. At the end I was much more sympathetic. Now my godson is transitioning and it is clearly mental anguish for her. Despite my more symathetic views to trans people I do agree the supreme court decison. But we must remember for many trans people it is a deep need to "change sex". Now having some direct knowledge I know that for my godchild it was a heart breaking issue and also incredibly hard for her "very" straght parents.
Unfortunately the suicide statistics for trans people are sobering.
There should be no doubt. This ruling, and the celebrations of those who support it, will drive more trans people to take their lives.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
Polling shows that the gender critical campaigns have worked very well on the public - they are becoming more trans-sceptic over time, but also that women continue to have less anti-trans views than men.
Thank you for another powerful and moving article, @Cyclefree. I have shared it with family and friends. I am disappointed that most of the discussion on this thread so far has not been relevant to the topic. I was also disappointed yesterday that both the BBC and ITV news seemed to me to be biased in favour of the trans supporters.
Thing is, because it's very thorough there isn't much to add to it and what could be added usefully has been said by @RochdalePioneers . So there is a real risk that further discussion will descend into a unedifying slanging match between rival camps.
I've just logged on to my work emails - there is some sort of chat function by which you can send emails to the whole company (on which there is a lot of identity politics): I've received an email which contains the following snippets: "Unison's 2024 women's conference agreed (with no votes against) a 'Unite for more rights" motion stating that 'Trans women are women' and 'Trans men are men' and 'women's rights are not diminished by Trans people having more rights' "(interestingly, the word 'trans' was capitalised throughout - what grammatical madness is this?); also, further down, an encouragement to go to a 'trans rights peaceful process'.
The madness has deep roots.
(Quotes may be borked - that could be @Cyclefree )
I'd say that the Unison motion skates over a key part of the question by not defining what it means by "trans man" and "trans woman", unless that was stated.
As the Equalities and Human Rights Committee has said, trans people may need a "third space" such as gender neutral facilities available to them. They do not need access to single sex spaces.
Maybe they should be required to paint a Star of David and "juden" on the door of those facilities.
Oh wait, sorry, getting my brands of fascism mixed up.
It's not fascism to have single sex spaces that are required for safeguarding reasons being restricted to those they exist to safeguard.
It's fascism 101. Exclude people from places they could previously use, make them stand out, leave them in no doubt they are unequal and unwelcome. If you have the slightest grasp of history you know where this road leads.
Interesting but hardly surprising to see Trump and Meloni apparently getting on well.
Both are strong on "immigration" which is apparently at the root of all Europe's problems.
Yet I hear no practical or coherent solutions - from "stop the boats" to "re-migration", there's a lot of people talking about immigration and saying something needs to be done but I've not heard a syllable of a practical and workable solution.
More "complaints" from Britain's greatest bunch of whingers, GB News, about Sudanese refugees at a 4* hotel - okay, fine. How do you get them out of that hotel? Where do you put them while their asylum cases are being processed? I'm led to believe (it's GB News so I take it with a bucketful of salt) there are thousands more waiting in Northern France to cross the Channel. Right - how do you prevent them crossing if that's the objective?
The whole debate is couched in sensationalist, fear mongering terms - practicality and common sense are noticeable by their absence.
Is this a serious question?
Or is it another 'what are these Brexit freedoms I hear so much about?', and then you list them, and silence, and then a week or so later - 'So who can list me a single Brexit freedom?'
If it is a serious question, you can do a number of things.
If our grant rate is three times that of France, where are you going to apply? We could do that by capping asylum figures. That could be done now.
Secondly, you could stop paying France eye watering millions upfront for what seems like zero assistance, and pay them on results - per boats destroyed, migrants detained, smugglers arrested.
Thirdly, you can detain migrants in basic purpose-built or hired accommodation. Airbases, barges. The hotels have to stop. A warm bed, safety, cleanliness and food is what someone claiming asylum should be entitled to, nothing else.
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda. To make the latter work, you probably need to leave the ECHR. To make the former work, you don't necessarily, because there's no danger of refoulement if the successful claimants are shipped back to the UK.
Fifthly, you can actually go after the people smugglers. It took a massive BBC investigation to get the police to get their finger out of their arse and arrest the last one.
Sixthly, you can do tow backs. This is a cruel to be kind solution, as it does place boat people in a very stressful situation. It does have the upside of being a massive disincentive to ever get on a channel crossing, so in the long run probably save lives.
Want me to continue?
This is unworkable performative crap and I'm sure Lucky knows this. 1. "Cap asylum numbers" - the only point which isn't unreasonable 2. "Stop paying France" - with what is proposed below? 3. "Detain migrants in gulags" - where? Remember that the Tory government proposed this using disused airbases, only to have Tory MPs - some very senior - scream and howl. The proposal is to build fortified open prison camps, so again my question is where? Staffed by whom? Secured by whom? At what cost? 4. "Oversees processing" at which point he comedically refers to Rwanda which was not oversees processing. I have no objection in principle, but again, where? Staffed by whom? And what is the domestic legal process to render people from the UK to wherever when our courts are underfunded and partially functional? 5. "Go after the people smugglers" - the option the Tories endlessly decried. This is a great idea. Many are in France. Ah, we told france to fuck off in point 2 and are about to do worse in point 6. 6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
You don't need to continue. Your proposals are crayon politics, drawn by a small child in red crayon. As always, the key to policy is that it actually has to be deliverable. Actionable. Realistic, not just "can't we tell these foreigners to fuck off".
Its a great insight into the coming Reform manifesto and deserved further commentary.
If my points were 'unworkable performative crap', you wouldn't need to respond with asinine misrepresentations or mealy mouthed acknowledgements disguised as rebukes.
I have not said 'stop paying France' have I? I have said payments should be set up in a different way that is dependent on results. You take the estimated impact on the boats of the current grants under the 'deal'. You translate that into a price per boat destroyed, smuggler arrested etc., and you agree to pay that per evidence of each outcome - you could agree to pay more than the 'going rate' as an incentive. Payment on delivery.
The previous Government already detained asylum seekers in a barge. It was perfectly servicable and comfortable. The current Government ended that - that is performative. As for other facilities, yes nimbys and Tory constituency MPs were against them - since when is that an objection for you?
Rwanda could easily have been used as a processing centre. The Government could have done so - it would have been sufficiently different from the Tories' policy 'more humane, more just' to be do-able politically. Instead they pathetically scrapped the whole scheme to make an infantile party political point, and then went bizarrely to 'learn from Claudia Meloni' on overseas processing.
Nobody EVER decried the concept of going after people smugglers, what a bizarre lie. 'Smash the gangs' was criticised as the sole strategy for solving illegal migration, and that criticism has proven valid in the event. However, even with it being the sole strategy, the police are quite clearly doing a shit job, which is why they got shown up by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pyyqep831o
I suspect Yvette Cooper is 'not getting involved in operational matters', and if she doesn't have the levers to give the police a rocket over this, she needs to get them.
Towbacks and overseas processing worked in Australia. And they are far more dangerous there. I don't see what objection France could have - they were quite clearly OK with them being in French waters, as they allowed them without hindrance. So yes, they would go back to France. And if boats don't get through, no more boats come.
Morning luv! I'm picking apart specifically to demonstrate that its unworkable crap.
Most amusing is that you're still clinging to Rwanda as something that could have worked.
The depressing thing is that you have zero interest in actually tackling the pan-European migration crisis. You just want to score political points.
No, I want the issue solved and put to bed, as it has been in Australia. Where they put the necessary policies in place (against screaming leftist objections naturally), none of which involved handwringing global summits to discuss the 'pan-pacific migrant crisis'.
If Rwanda was unworkable, why is the Government actively discussed other overseas solutions? Why did they go to Meloni to 'learn' about her policy of processing in Albania? Making it up as they go along, much like you.
The missing piece of the puzzle compared to Australia is the British equivalent of Christmas Island. The logistics of sending refugees abroad is not simple and you need somewhere beyond the reach of the legal-industrial complex to warehouse them while it gets organised.
Rwanda was only one element of the Australian solution and, on its own, probably wouldn't have been workable.
Big Rish and the Gang knew all this of course. The entire policy was just something to distract red wall morons from the fact that 95%+ of the Brexitwave immigration were legal entries that the tories could have reduced any time they wanted.
Once again, I will propose my solution - West Falkland. Anyone arriving without proper paperwork gets sent there.
British so no trouble with courts.
It should be a state of the art facility with good accommodation. No need for barbed wire because there's nowhere else to go. You can't leave except for the ferry and the operator will know all the residents personally and can just turn anyone else away.
You are free to leave any time you like, once you get another passport.
The weather is crap so anyone who doesn't want to be there won't tolerate it but genuine asylum seekers will be happy to wait for a year.
(Ideally this should also be accompanied by measures to make it easier for genuine asylum seekers to seek it nearer home).
If you think it's expensive to lock them up in hotels - it is - then you're going to be dismayed by the costing of that scheme.
You are clearly unaware how much these largely fake asylum seekers cost us over a lifetime. An enormous fiscal drain - and that’s on top of the hotels etc
A long flight to some chilly prefab in west Falkland will cost a few percent of that. What’s more, within weeks of this becoming policy - and strictly enforced - I bet 90% of the boats will disappear
The Falklanders might complain but then all we gotta do is remind them who defends them from Argentina and who maintains their now lavish income - $80k per capita per year? - and they will shut up
This is their way of repaying us for the war of 1982
Thank you for your article @Cyclefree. You made an error of fact/elision, namely "Tax KC Jolyon Maugham complained bitterly that the court refused to hear from trans groups. An outright lie. As he wrote last year none applied to intervene". Maugham's GoodLawProject filed its application for intervention on behalf of the trans people Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle on 13/9/24[1]. It was denied and none of the lawyers, intervenors nor judges were trans.
Whilst Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle do not constitute a trans group individually (though possibly collectively), they are certainly trans people, so I think it's true to say that the Supreme Court refused to hear from trans people.
On topic, yesterday we discussed Lib Dem views within the Trans debate.
Here is a piece on Lib Dem Voice (for anyone down a hole, perhaps the key platform for activists since 2007 about the verdict, with a few comments. To it catches the tenor of the public conversation amongst activists quite well. That is, a focus on the perceived rights of trans people being the main question, and a bit of a feeling of the Leadership holding back.
There will be other views, but I think this is how I judge the positioning of more vocal activists. That includes, imo, the view of the editor of LDV.
My view? At federal conference last year I attended the stalls of both sides of this debate. And found much I agreed with at both stalls!
Ed Davey said that we accept the judgement in full - sensible as its the Supreme Court. The ruling provides a very useful definition of "what is a woman" so that we can now move on from the tireless virtue signalling about whether a woman can have a penis or not.
What do I think the party should do? Campaign on Something Else.
What was the useful definition of 'what a woman is' in the ruling?
"“the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words ['man", "woman"] corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”."
You can't specify anything anatomical as surgery can remove things - though its a good place to start. Chromosomes being the other obvious marker. And yes there will be the fleetingly rare edge cases which challenge this, but as a catch-all it's good enough.
So now we can move onto the debate. Can a woman have a penis? Legally no. Can a man have surgery to remove a penis and create a vagina? Can a man have hormone treatment to mute all of the male characteristics? Yes and yes - and that is where I sense the obvious line is drawn.
My friend Lauren will physically transition to be physically female. By which point I would hope that even the most strident activists wouldn't be demanding that a biologically transformed woman be denied entry to certain toilets etc. She is very different to what I think so many activists object to which is manly women whose transition starts and ends with a frock and pronouns.
On a point of order - does @Cyclefree and her fellow activists accept that this ruling does nothing for female safety? Women get dragged into toilets and changing rooms by men and then get assaulted, raped, murdered. Men already had access to womens spaces because the rapey murdery ones just barge in. And still will.
The threat to women was not trans women, it's men. I hope that the ruling allows us to move on from this minority sport and go back to basics which is raising young men to understand that their rights over women are zero.
You are in danger of making the perfect the enemy of the good there
Prisons seems an easy one to solve. A separate wing in a few of the bigger prisons seems all that is needed? Objectors to that from either side?
Toilets are definitely trickier due to space constraints.
IANAE, and I think others on here are, but with regard to prisons: *) The prisoners may be further away from their homes, meaning prisoners may not be able to get friends and family visiting as easily. (This is an important thing IMO, and AIUI prisons should at least attempt to keep most prisoners near their homes.) *) If the wing only contains a few trans prisoners, that might be amount to segregation: particularly if they are the only prisoner. *) It would be expensive.
Perhaps if the trans person has been convicted of a sexual offence, or has a history of sexual offences, then that should be treated differently than if they are only in prison for a non-sexual offence, e.g. fraud?
My friend Lauren will physically transition to be physically female. By which point I would hope that even the most strident activists wouldn't be demanding that a biologically transformed woman be denied entry to certain toilets etc.
I think that's naive. The entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that i) one's status is settled at birth and does not change, and ii) single-sex spaces are based on the status at birth. There is no "my friend Lauren" exception.
As I pointed out to you the other day, if somebody like "my friend Lauren" used a single-sex female toilet, then the organizers of that toilet could be sued and under the new ruling the organizers would lose.
Perhaps more toilets will be converted into unisex, which has occurred in an M&S near us?
Will trans men be forced to use female toilets? Will females be upset by them as well?
That is a question. This is Balian Buschbaum, a pole vaulter.
Do you think Balian should be using the male or female toilets?
My opinion is he should use the male toilets, as he looks like a male, he probably has the male bits and I suspect the police would be called soon enough if he went into a female toilet. This obviously flies in the face of the supreme court ruling.
The SC clarification is that if Balian was refused entry to a male toilet, he couldn't use the Equalities Act to gain entry on the grounds that he is a man, because in fact he is a biological woman.
He could use the Equalities Act to gain access to a female toilet on the grounds that he is a biological woman but come on, he wouldn't, would he? In practice. In the real world.
What the clarification prevents is a "man in a frock" i.e. an obvious man pretending to be a woman perhaps for a lark or a kick, using the Equalities Act to demand access to a female toilet on the basis of his self identification as of female gender. The clarification stops this. And a good thing too.
Thank you for your article @Cyclefree. You made an error of fact/elision, namely "Tax KC Jolyon Maugham complained bitterly that the court refused to hear from trans groups. An outright lie. As he wrote last year none applied to intervene". Maugham's GoodLawProject filed its application for intervention on behalf of the trans people Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle on 13/9/24[1]. It was denied and none of the lawyers, intervenors nor judges were trans.
Whilst Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle do not constitute a trans group individually (though possibly collectively), they are certainly trans people, so I think it's true to say that the Supreme Court refused to hear from trans people.
Utter bollox, what clown thinks that we have to have trans judges and lawyers to decide what a woman is, this country is full of absolute nutters.
Victoria McCloud is trans and was a trans judge.
Not sure your point , mine was in response to the bollox that the case had no trans lawyers and judges and so biased. As long as they are judge's first and foremost I don't give a toss what they do in their private life if legal.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
It's almost like somebody wrote an article about how John Gray points out that such disputes are not solved by the judicial process via judgments but by the political process via modi vivendi...
My friend Lauren will physically transition to be physically female. By which point I would hope that even the most strident activists wouldn't be demanding that a biologically transformed woman be denied entry to certain toilets etc.
I think that's naive. The entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that i) one's status is settled at birth and does not change, and ii) single-sex spaces are based on the status at birth. There is no "my friend Lauren" exception.
As I pointed out to you the other day, if somebody like "my friend Lauren" used a single-sex female toilet, then the organizers of that toilet could be sued and under the new ruling the organizers would lose.
And this is where extremism continues to rear its ugly head. Lets play your scenario: Trans woman uses female toilet Well-funded activist group sues
How would the case go? "The organiser of this toilet allowed a MAN in" How exactly does the complainant imagine that the venue police the toilet? Place a guard at the entrance? Only let in ones who "look like a woman"? Do some kind of check?
In the real world (as in not in America/Gilead) nobody is going to sue. And any moron who tries can be told to GFT.
This is my problem with the women's rights vs trans rights row. It's always about sodding toilets.
Toilets and safe spaces (which sfaict are not properly defined or mandated anyway, merely asserted and respected by convention or by other means – men do not generally enter women's public conveniences and nor are they to be found taking up beds on a maternity ward).
But the other big issue that has distorted the debate is prisons, where men who are not trans until convicted have a strong incentive to falsely claim they are trans women in order to get into a women's prison which are generally perceived as safer than men's (and with recent news of prison attacks in mind, that is probably a correct view). I'd imagine most cases of self-identification causing problems is in this group. And it's not like convicted criminals have a high reputation for honesty in the first place.
Prisons seems an easy one to solve. A separate wing in a few of the bigger prisons seems all that is needed? Objectors to that from either side?
Toilets are definitely trickier due to space constraints.
IANAE, and I think others on here are, but with regard to prisons: *) The prisoners may be further away from their homes, meaning prisoners may not be able to get friends and family visiting as easily. (This is an important thing IMO, and AIUI prisons should at least attempt to keep most prisoners near their homes.) *) If the wing only contains a few trans prisoners, that might be amount to segregation: particularly if they are the only prisoner. *) It would be expensive.
Perhaps if the trans person has been convicted of a sexual offence, or has a history of sexual offences, then that should be treated differently than if they are only in prison for a non-sexual offence, e.g. fraud?
I'm thinking half a dozen across the country, so yes to point 1 but not to point 2. On point 3 the cost per prisoner is high but its a drop in the ocean of the wider justice budget and clearly an issue that disrupts peoples faith in the prison system so a worthwhile spend.
On point 1 could do something like free train fare for x visits per year if over y miles from home as some mitigation.
Well quite. The SC has settled the law as it currently stands but Parliament can change the law. The debate goes on…
Parliament absolutely will not change the law. Public opinion is quite clear on this issue - no self ID - and no sane government will return to this and risk a massive new flashback
It’s done. The Supreme Court judgment was an earthquake - part of the tectonic shift against Woke - and what we are now experiencing are the aftershocks. They happen. But they subside over time
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
A GRC gives a trans person the legal right to a new birth certificate and passport in their gender. That's useful to avoid embarrassment in some circumstances and perhaps to provide emotional satisfaction. It's not worthless.
But it doesn't give them rights, as a woman, under the Equalities Act. But they still have rights, as trans, under the Act.
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
So in your (old) role as director, how would you police single-sex toilets at your office? A security guard outside? Cameras? Would genitals be inspected? Blood samples taken? The Supreme Court's cure might be worse than the disease. And would give a greater risk of being sued.
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
Polling shows that the gender critical campaigns have worked very well on the public - they are becoming more trans-sceptic over time, but also that women continue to have less anti-trans views than men.
It's a particular issue which cuts across other political boundaries, of course, uniting some feminists with some of the most anti-feminist.
The existence of transgender individuals is inconvenient for not a few worldviews.
This is something that's completely crazy and often ignored in discussions about trans rights.
Historically feminism has always had strongly reactionary element within it, from Suffragettes who enthusiastically signed up with the British Union of Fascists onwards. Progress for me, but not for thee...
Well quite. The SC has settled the law as it currently stands but Parliament can change the law. The debate goes on…
Parliament absolutely will not change the law. Public opinion is quite clear on this issue - no self ID - and no sane government will return to this and risk a massive new flashback
It’s done. The Supreme Court judgment was an earthquake - part of the tectonic shift against Woke - and what we are now experiencing are the aftershocks. They happen. But they subside over time
Not right now, no. But who knows in future. The joys of democracy
Some years ago I was very anti trans people. That was until (when I was a councillor) I attended a talk organised by the Council given by a trans person who was transitioning from male to female. She told us about the psychological issues she endured. Many people transitioning attempt suicide - may be a call for help or a serious attempt. At the end I was much more sympathetic. Now my godson is transitioning and it is clearly mental anguish for her. Despite my more symathetic views to trans people I do agree the supreme court decison. But we must remember for many trans people it is a deep need to "change sex". Now having some direct knowledge I know that for my godchild it was a heart breaking issue and also incredibly hard for her "very" straght parents.
Thanks for that, madmacs.
The "but they should be treated with compassion" that everyone was professing yesterday has been notably lacking this morning.
Krishna Guha, at ISI Evercore, says it would be “difficult to overstate the consequences at this stressed moment of a [Supreme] court ruling that found that President Trump – who has just tweeted saying Powell’s termination cannot come soon enough – does have the authority to dismiss the heads of independent agencies and did not establish a clear carve-out for the Fed”.
Telegraph
Just to be clear (the tweet is ambiguous) , Krishna’s comment is forward looking. The Sc hasn’t yet ruled in Trump vs Wilcox
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Agreed. Activists eliding the distinction between pre- (or non-) and post-op is what led to this mess, although this is balanced by those on the other side who do not accept it makes any difference (the Supreme Court is slightly more nuanced on this point, I think, but not much).
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Except pre-post op does not work when someone has to legally live as their 'new' gender identity for a period (I think two years in E&W, 18 months in Scotland). In that time, if they are dressing and behaving as their new gender, they should use the facilities. Otherwise, as has apparently happened, people will complain that they shouldn't be able to transition, as they have been using the 'wrong' toilets. Hence preventing them from transitioning...
In the past I have wondered if a away around this is to issue another certificate for people undergoing that 18-month or two-year period, allowing them rights to use the facilities of their new gender identity. This will continue to be in place until it is removed (e.g. because they choose, or doctors/courts do) or they have undergone the surgery and are now their new gender identity.
I daresay there are problems with this approach as well...
My friend Lauren will physically transition to be physically female. By which point I would hope that even the most strident activists wouldn't be demanding that a biologically transformed woman be denied entry to certain toilets etc.
I think that's naive. The entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that i) one's status is settled at birth and does not change, and ii) single-sex spaces are based on the status at birth. There is no "my friend Lauren" exception.
As I pointed out to you the other day, if somebody like "my friend Lauren" used a single-sex female toilet, then the organizers of that toilet could be sued and under the new ruling the organizers would lose.
The claimant would have to demonstrate harm to sue successfully
Incidentally, there must be more than a few disability activists concerned at suggestions that *their* toilets should in future be used for non-binary but, crucially, non-disabled people.
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
A GRC gives a trans person the legal right to a new birth certificate and passport in their gender. That's useful to avoid embarrassment in some circumstances and perhaps to provide emotional satisfaction. It's not worthless.
But it doesn't give them rights, as a woman, under the Equalities Act. But they still have rights, as trans, under the Act.
As understand it now, trans-women still have the same rights as biological women, in mixed-sex areas, which people inhabit 99% of the time.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
It's more than "we recognise you wish to be treated as X". From the Act:
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).
The SC ruling has clarified the EA at the cost of neutering the GRA.
Incidentally, there must be more than a few disability activists concerned at suggestions that *their* toilets should in future be used for non-binary but, crucially, non-disabled people.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
Hope this is a sign @Cyclefree is feeling a bit better.
Absolutely, and it's a powerful piece. I feel like I sit at the crossroads on this issue. I have a wife and a daughter and have seen and heard too many examples of men who tret women and girls as chattel. Protecting women from the predatory nature of certain men is something I actively support.
I also have involvement in the trans area. I'm bisexual so I'm part of the LGBTetc community. My eldest (non-binary but biologically male) had a trans boyfriend for a while and they're still close friends. A former colleague and good friend is a trans woman saving up for surgery.
My basic rule with rights is that if they trample on the human rights of other people they aren't rights. I support both the need for female spaces (my wife despises open changing even when everyone has the same genitalia) and to provide dignity and respect for people who genuinely have dysmorphia and are medically working their way through transition.
The problem with the trans debate is the screaming extremists at both ends of the spectrum. Absolutism is usually wrong - issues are not black and white and this one is no different. I do have to float a question though - in the race to be inclusive have we not lost sight of who we are being inclusive of?
I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig. But the trans rights row seems to lump everyone together.
Yes, but there's a problem. In a finite world, rights are likely to trample over each other.
Take toilets. There aren't enough as it is, so the idea that two categories should become three is pretty unlikely. What happens in the meantime?
At the risk of triggering the eminently triggerable guardians of lavvies and changing rooms, a reminder that there are many places where no one gives a feck. This is the single lav for all customers in The Pub, the Valetta hostelry where Ollie Reed drank and breathed his last. What Ollie's views on Trans people were I don't know, but I suspect not giving a feck may have been involved.
Plenty of micropubs in the UK only have one toilet. Of course where you have a lockable room with one trap, it isn't an issue
It is if you're burstin'!
The advantage of Fosters is you can get away with pissing in a glass because no one can tell the difference
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
So in your (old) role as director, how would you police single-sex toilets at your office? A security guard outside? Cameras? Would genitals be inspected? Blood samples taken? The Supreme Court's cure might be worse than the disease. And would give a greater risk of being sued.
The correct answer might be to simply remove the male and female signs and designate all your workplace's toilets as unisex.
Except anywhere with a urinal will have to remain male-only to avoid charges of exhibitionism or indecent exposure.
But this makes women worse off than before the SC Judgment, so probably best to do what we've done for centuries and leave toilets to self-policing by users.
Well quite. The SC has settled the law as it currently stands but Parliament can change the law. The debate goes on…
Parliament absolutely will not change the law. Public opinion is quite clear on this issue - no self ID - and no sane government will return to this and risk a massive new flashback
It’s done. The Supreme Court judgment was an earthquake - part of the tectonic shift against Woke - and what we are now experiencing are the aftershocks. They happen. But they subside over time
In Scotland, the SNP, LibDems, and Labour (all of whom supported Sturgeon's mad obsession with this) are all scuttling away from the issue as fast as they can. Just the Greens left flying the flag. It's dead and buried.
My friend Lauren will physically transition to be physically female. By which point I would hope that even the most strident activists wouldn't be demanding that a biologically transformed woman be denied entry to certain toilets etc.
I think that's naive. The entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that i) one's status is settled at birth and does not change, and ii) single-sex spaces are based on the status at birth. There is no "my friend Lauren" exception.
As I pointed out to you the other day, if somebody like "my friend Lauren" used a single-sex female toilet, then the organizers of that toilet could be sued and under the new ruling the organizers would lose.
And this is where extremism continues to rear its ugly head. Lets play your scenario: Trans woman uses female toilet Well-funded activist group sues
How would the case go? "The organiser of this toilet allowed a MAN in" How exactly does the complainant imagine that the venue police the toilet? Place a guard at the entrance? Only let in ones who "look like a woman"? Do some kind of check?
In the real world (as in not in America/Gilead) nobody is going to sue. And any moron who tries can be told to GFT.
This is my problem with the women's rights vs trans rights row. It's always about sodding toilets.
Gender neutral toilets will likely become more common with trans expected to use them
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
So in your (old) role as director, how would you police single-sex toilets at your office? A security guard outside? Cameras? Would genitals be inspected? Blood samples taken? The Supreme Court's cure might be worse than the disease. And would give a greater risk of being sued.
How do you ever police safeguarding?
You set in place policies and procedures, and if someone thinks those policies or procedures are being broken there is a named individual or a safeguarding email address etc that concerns can be sent to which they get investigated and dealt with properly.
And if someone is violating safeguarding procedures they can get further training if accidental, or if serious and deliberate might face disciplinary action upto and including termination of employment.
Safeguarding exists for a reason. It's not a novel concept.
My friend Lauren will physically transition to be physically female. By which point I would hope that even the most strident activists wouldn't be demanding that a biologically transformed woman be denied entry to certain toilets etc.
I think that's naive. The entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that i) one's status is settled at birth and does not change, and ii) single-sex spaces are based on the status at birth. There is no "my friend Lauren" exception.
As I pointed out to you the other day, if somebody like "my friend Lauren" used a single-sex female toilet, then the organizers of that toilet could be sued and under the new ruling the organizers would lose.
The claimant would have to demonstrate harm to sue successfully
They would claim that their right to pee/poo in a single-sex space had been violated and were suing for damages to that. Under the new SC ruling, they would be correct.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Except pre-post op does not work when someone has to legally live as their 'new' gender identity for a period (I think two years in E&W, 18 months in Scotland). In that time, if they are dressing and behaving as their new gender, they should use the facilities. Otherwise, as has apparently happened, people will complain that they shouldn't be able to transition, as they have been using the 'wrong' toilets. Hence preventing them from transitioning...
In the past I have wondered if a away around this is to issue another certificate for people undergoing that 18-month or two-year period, allowing them rights to use the facilities of their new gender identity. This will continue to be in place until it is removed (e.g. because they choose, or doctors/courts do) or they have undergone the surgery and are now their new gender identity.
I daresay there are problems with this approach as well...
Why not just wear trousers and use cubicles while transitioning and avoid beards etc.
Interesting but hardly surprising to see Trump and Meloni apparently getting on well.
Both are strong on "immigration" which is apparently at the root of all Europe's problems.
Yet I hear no practical or coherent solutions - from "stop the boats" to "re-migration", there's a lot of people talking about immigration and saying something needs to be done but I've not heard a syllable of a practical and workable solution.
More "complaints" from Britain's greatest bunch of whingers, GB News, about Sudanese refugees at a 4* hotel - okay, fine. How do you get them out of that hotel? Where do you put them while their asylum cases are being processed? I'm led to believe (it's GB News so I take it with a bucketful of salt) there are thousands more waiting in Northern France to cross the Channel. Right - how do you prevent them crossing if that's the objective?
The whole debate is couched in sensationalist, fear mongering terms - practicality and common sense are noticeable by their absence.
Is this a serious question?
Or is it another 'what are these Brexit freedoms I hear so much about?', and then you list them, and silence, and then a week or so later - 'So who can list me a single Brexit freedom?'
If it is a serious question, you can do a number of things.
If our grant rate is three times that of France, where are you going to apply? We could do that by capping asylum figures. That could be done now.
Secondly, you could stop paying France eye watering millions upfront for what seems like zero assistance, and pay them on results - per boats destroyed, migrants detained, smugglers arrested.
Thirdly, you can detain migrants in basic purpose-built or hired accommodation. Airbases, barges. The hotels have to stop. A warm bed, safety, cleanliness and food is what someone claiming asylum should be entitled to, nothing else.
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda. To make the latter work, you probably need to leave the ECHR. To make the former work, you don't necessarily, because there's no danger of refoulement if the successful claimants are shipped back to the UK.
Fifthly, you can actually go after the people smugglers. It took a massive BBC investigation to get the police to get their finger out of their arse and arrest the last one.
Sixthly, you can do tow backs. This is a cruel to be kind solution, as it does place boat people in a very stressful situation. It does have the upside of being a massive disincentive to ever get on a channel crossing, so in the long run probably save lives.
Want me to continue?
This is unworkable performative crap and I'm sure Lucky knows this. 1. "Cap asylum numbers" - the only point which isn't unreasonable 2. "Stop paying France" - with what is proposed below? 3. "Detain migrants in gulags" - where? Remember that the Tory government proposed this using disused airbases, only to have Tory MPs - some very senior - scream and howl. The proposal is to build fortified open prison camps, so again my question is where? Staffed by whom? Secured by whom? At what cost? 4. "Oversees processing" at which point he comedically refers to Rwanda which was not oversees processing. I have no objection in principle, but again, where? Staffed by whom? And what is the domestic legal process to render people from the UK to wherever when our courts are underfunded and partially functional? 5. "Go after the people smugglers" - the option the Tories endlessly decried. This is a great idea. Many are in France. Ah, we told france to fuck off in point 2 and are about to do worse in point 6. 6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
You don't need to continue. Your proposals are crayon politics, drawn by a small child in red crayon. As always, the key to policy is that it actually has to be deliverable. Actionable. Realistic, not just "can't we tell these foreigners to fuck off".
Its a great insight into the coming Reform manifesto and deserved further commentary.
If my points were 'unworkable performative crap', you wouldn't need to respond with asinine misrepresentations or mealy mouthed acknowledgements disguised as rebukes.
I have not said 'stop paying France' have I? I have said payments should be set up in a different way that is dependent on results. You take the estimated impact on the boats of the current grants under the 'deal'. You translate that into a price per boat destroyed, smuggler arrested etc., and you agree to pay that per evidence of each outcome - you could agree to pay more than the 'going rate' as an incentive. Payment on delivery.
The previous Government already detained asylum seekers in a barge. It was perfectly servicable and comfortable. The current Government ended that - that is performative. As for other facilities, yes nimbys and Tory constituency MPs were against them - since when is that an objection for you?
Rwanda could easily have been used as a processing centre. The Government could have done so - it would have been sufficiently different from the Tories' policy 'more humane, more just' to be do-able politically. Instead they pathetically scrapped the whole scheme to make an infantile party political point, and then went bizarrely to 'learn from Claudia Meloni' on overseas processing.
Nobody EVER decried the concept of going after people smugglers, what a bizarre lie. 'Smash the gangs' was criticised as the sole strategy for solving illegal migration, and that criticism has proven valid in the event. However, even with it being the sole strategy, the police are quite clearly doing a shit job, which is why they got shown up by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pyyqep831o
I suspect Yvette Cooper is 'not getting involved in operational matters', and if she doesn't have the levers to give the police a rocket over this, she needs to get them.
Towbacks and overseas processing worked in Australia. And they are far more dangerous there. I don't see what objection France could have - they were quite clearly OK with them being in French waters, as they allowed them without hindrance. So yes, they would go back to France. And if boats don't get through, no more boats come.
Morning luv! I'm picking apart specifically to demonstrate that its unworkable crap.
Most amusing is that you're still clinging to Rwanda as something that could have worked.
The depressing thing is that you have zero interest in actually tackling the pan-European migration crisis. You just want to score political points.
No, I want the issue solved and put to bed, as it has been in Australia. Where they put the necessary policies in place (against screaming leftist objections naturally), none of which involved handwringing global summits to discuss the 'pan-pacific migrant crisis'.
If Rwanda was unworkable, why is the Government actively discussed other overseas solutions? Why did they go to Meloni to 'learn' about her policy of processing in Albania? Making it up as they go along, much like you.
The missing piece of the puzzle compared to Australia is the British equivalent of Christmas Island. The logistics of sending refugees abroad is not simple and you need somewhere beyond the reach of the legal-industrial complex to warehouse them while it gets organised.
Rwanda was only one element of the Australian solution and, on its own, probably wouldn't have been workable.
Big Rish and the Gang knew all this of course. The entire policy was just something to distract red wall morons from the fact that 95%+ of the Brexitwave immigration were legal entries that the tories could have reduced any time they wanted.
Once again, I will propose my solution - West Falkland. Anyone arriving without proper paperwork gets sent there.
It would be stupendously expensive and still doesn't fix the problem of denying the refugees access to the British judicial system because they can't be shipped straight there from the Channel without landing them in the UK.
Well quite. The SC has settled the law as it currently stands but Parliament can change the law. The debate goes on…
Parliament absolutely will not change the law. Public opinion is quite clear on this issue - no self ID - and no sane government will return to this and risk a massive new flashback
It’s done. The Supreme Court judgment was an earthquake - part of the tectonic shift against Woke - and what we are now experiencing are the aftershocks. They happen. But they subside over time
In Scotland, the SNP, LibDems, and Labour (all of whom supported Sturgeon's mad obsession with this) are all scuttling away from the issue as fast as they can. Just the Greens left flying the flag. It's dead and buried.
The Greens are a bunch of weirdos, rest are just scumbags who have more faces than the town clock and will have any principles you wish if it gets votes and keeps them on hte gravy train.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Agreed. Activists eliding the distinction between pre- (or non-) and post-op is what led to this mess, although this is balanced by those on the other side who do not accept it makes any difference (the Supreme Court is slightly more nuanced on this point, I think, but not much).
A problem with that is pre-post op is not a binary split, but a process. You are supposed to live as your new gender identity for a period before the op. So it is really old gender identity, followed by a significant transitioning period, then post-op.
(Some people want to remove or reduce that time period, and I know a friend who transitioned hated its length. But a transitioning period seems sensible to me to allow the subject and their family/friends/acquaintances get used to their new gender identity. In addition, a few people do decide not to transition during that period, often because of side-effects of the drugs.)
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
A GRC gives a trans person the legal right to a new birth certificate and passport in their gender. That's useful to avoid embarrassment in some circumstances and perhaps to provide emotional satisfaction. It's not worthless.
But it doesn't give them rights, as a woman, under the Equalities Act. But they still have rights, as trans, under the Act.
A thing that doesn't give you actionable legal rights in court is worthless by definition. They could use it as wallpaper or a writing pad, or in a pinch loo paper, but other than that it has no function.
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
So in your (old) role as director, how would you police single-sex toilets at your office? A security guard outside? Cameras? Would genitals be inspected? Blood samples taken? The Supreme Court's cure might be worse than the disease. And would give a greater risk of being sued.
At least one can be sure that in the unlikely event of toilet policing coming into being, those applying for the job would be absolute wrong uns and should be put on some sort of a list.
Interesting but hardly surprising to see Trump and Meloni apparently getting on well.
Both are strong on "immigration" which is apparently at the root of all Europe's problems.
Yet I hear no practical or coherent solutions - from "stop the boats" to "re-migration", there's a lot of people talking about immigration and saying something needs to be done but I've not heard a syllable of a practical and workable solution.
More "complaints" from Britain's greatest bunch of whingers, GB News, about Sudanese refugees at a 4* hotel - okay, fine. How do you get them out of that hotel? Where do you put them while their asylum cases are being processed? I'm led to believe (it's GB News so I take it with a bucketful of salt) there are thousands more waiting in Northern France to cross the Channel. Right - how do you prevent them crossing if that's the objective?
The whole debate is couched in sensationalist, fear mongering terms - practicality and common sense are noticeable by their absence.
Is this a serious question?
Or is it another 'what are these Brexit freedoms I hear so much about?', and then you list them, and silence, and then a week or so later - 'So who can list me a single Brexit freedom?'
If it is a serious question, you can do a number of things.
If our grant rate is three times that of France, where are you going to apply? We could do that by capping asylum figures. That could be done now.
Secondly, you could stop paying France eye watering millions upfront for what seems like zero assistance, and pay them on results - per boats destroyed, migrants detained, smugglers arrested.
Thirdly, you can detain migrants in basic purpose-built or hired accommodation. Airbases, barges. The hotels have to stop. A warm bed, safety, cleanliness and food is what someone claiming asylum should be entitled to, nothing else.
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda. To make the latter work, you probably need to leave the ECHR. To make the former work, you don't necessarily, because there's no danger of refoulement if the successful claimants are shipped back to the UK.
Fifthly, you can actually go after the people smugglers. It took a massive BBC investigation to get the police to get their finger out of their arse and arrest the last one.
Sixthly, you can do tow backs. This is a cruel to be kind solution, as it does place boat people in a very stressful situation. It does have the upside of being a massive disincentive to ever get on a channel crossing, so in the long run probably save lives.
Want me to continue?
This is unworkable performative crap and I'm sure Lucky knows this. 1. "Cap asylum numbers" - the only point which isn't unreasonable 2. "Stop paying France" - with what is proposed below? 3. "Detain migrants in gulags" - where? Remember that the Tory government proposed this using disused airbases, only to have Tory MPs - some very senior - scream and howl. The proposal is to build fortified open prison camps, so again my question is where? Staffed by whom? Secured by whom? At what cost? 4. "Oversees processing" at which point he comedically refers to Rwanda which was not oversees processing. I have no objection in principle, but again, where? Staffed by whom? And what is the domestic legal process to render people from the UK to wherever when our courts are underfunded and partially functional? 5. "Go after the people smugglers" - the option the Tories endlessly decried. This is a great idea. Many are in France. Ah, we told france to fuck off in point 2 and are about to do worse in point 6. 6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
You don't need to continue. Your proposals are crayon politics, drawn by a small child in red crayon. As always, the key to policy is that it actually has to be deliverable. Actionable. Realistic, not just "can't we tell these foreigners to fuck off".
Its a great insight into the coming Reform manifesto and deserved further commentary.
If my points were 'unworkable performative crap', you wouldn't need to respond with asinine misrepresentations or mealy mouthed acknowledgements disguised as rebukes.
I have not said 'stop paying France' have I? I have said payments should be set up in a different way that is dependent on results. You take the estimated impact on the boats of the current grants under the 'deal'. You translate that into a price per boat destroyed, smuggler arrested etc., and you agree to pay that per evidence of each outcome - you could agree to pay more than the 'going rate' as an incentive. Payment on delivery.
The previous Government already detained asylum seekers in a barge. It was perfectly servicable and comfortable. The current Government ended that - that is performative. As for other facilities, yes nimbys and Tory constituency MPs were against them - since when is that an objection for you?
Rwanda could easily have been used as a processing centre. The Government could have done so - it would have been sufficiently different from the Tories' policy 'more humane, more just' to be do-able politically. Instead they pathetically scrapped the whole scheme to make an infantile party political point, and then went bizarrely to 'learn from Claudia Meloni' on overseas processing.
Nobody EVER decried the concept of going after people smugglers, what a bizarre lie. 'Smash the gangs' was criticised as the sole strategy for solving illegal migration, and that criticism has proven valid in the event. However, even with it being the sole strategy, the police are quite clearly doing a shit job, which is why they got shown up by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pyyqep831o
I suspect Yvette Cooper is 'not getting involved in operational matters', and if she doesn't have the levers to give the police a rocket over this, she needs to get them.
Towbacks and overseas processing worked in Australia. And they are far more dangerous there. I don't see what objection France could have - they were quite clearly OK with them being in French waters, as they allowed them without hindrance. So yes, they would go back to France. And if boats don't get through, no more boats come.
Morning luv! I'm picking apart specifically to demonstrate that its unworkable crap.
Most amusing is that you're still clinging to Rwanda as something that could have worked.
The depressing thing is that you have zero interest in actually tackling the pan-European migration crisis. You just want to score political points.
No, I want the issue solved and put to bed, as it has been in Australia. Where they put the necessary policies in place (against screaming leftist objections naturally), none of which involved handwringing global summits to discuss the 'pan-pacific migrant crisis'.
If Rwanda was unworkable, why is the Government actively discussed other overseas solutions? Why did they go to Meloni to 'learn' about her policy of processing in Albania? Making it up as they go along, much like you.
The missing piece of the puzzle compared to Australia is the British equivalent of Christmas Island. The logistics of sending refugees abroad is not simple and you need somewhere beyond the reach of the legal-industrial complex to warehouse them while it gets organised.
Rwanda was only one element of the Australian solution and, on its own, probably wouldn't have been workable.
Big Rish and the Gang knew all this of course. The entire policy was just something to distract red wall morons from the fact that 95%+ of the Brexitwave immigration were legal entries that the tories could have reduced any time they wanted.
Once again, I will propose my solution - West Falkland. Anyone arriving without proper paperwork gets sent there.
It would be stupendously expensive and still doesn't fix the problem of denying the refugees access to the British judicial system because they can't be shipped straight there from the Channel without landing them in the UK.
So offshore processing then. If only there were large metal objects with accommodation that can station-keep in water. Perhaps we could call it a "ship". We could put then on that "ship" thing, process them there outside UK jurisdiction, then transship them back to France. Job done.
Interesting but hardly surprising to see Trump and Meloni apparently getting on well.
Both are strong on "immigration" which is apparently at the root of all Europe's problems.
Yet I hear no practical or coherent solutions - from "stop the boats" to "re-migration", there's a lot of people talking about immigration and saying something needs to be done but I've not heard a syllable of a practical and workable solution.
More "complaints" from Britain's greatest bunch of whingers, GB News, about Sudanese refugees at a 4* hotel - okay, fine. How do you get them out of that hotel? Where do you put them while their asylum cases are being processed? I'm led to believe (it's GB News so I take it with a bucketful of salt) there are thousands more waiting in Northern France to cross the Channel. Right - how do you prevent them crossing if that's the objective?
The whole debate is couched in sensationalist, fear mongering terms - practicality and common sense are noticeable by their absence.
Is this a serious question?
Or is it another 'what are these Brexit freedoms I hear so much about?', and then you list them, and silence, and then a week or so later - 'So who can list me a single Brexit freedom?'
If it is a serious question, you can do a number of things.
If our grant rate is three times that of France, where are you going to apply? We could do that by capping asylum figures. That could be done now.
Secondly, you could stop paying France eye watering millions upfront for what seems like zero assistance, and pay them on results - per boats destroyed, migrants detained, smugglers arrested.
Thirdly, you can detain migrants in basic purpose-built or hired accommodation. Airbases, barges. The hotels have to stop. A warm bed, safety, cleanliness and food is what someone claiming asylum should be entitled to, nothing else.
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda. To make the latter work, you probably need to leave the ECHR. To make the former work, you don't necessarily, because there's no danger of refoulement if the successful claimants are shipped back to the UK.
Fifthly, you can actually go after the people smugglers. It took a massive BBC investigation to get the police to get their finger out of their arse and arrest the last one.
Sixthly, you can do tow backs. This is a cruel to be kind solution, as it does place boat people in a very stressful situation. It does have the upside of being a massive disincentive to ever get on a channel crossing, so in the long run probably save lives.
Want me to continue?
This is unworkable performative crap and I'm sure Lucky knows this. 1. "Cap asylum numbers" - the only point which isn't unreasonable 2. "Stop paying France" - with what is proposed below? 3. "Detain migrants in gulags" - where? Remember that the Tory government proposed this using disused airbases, only to have Tory MPs - some very senior - scream and howl. The proposal is to build fortified open prison camps, so again my question is where? Staffed by whom? Secured by whom? At what cost? 4. "Oversees processing" at which point he comedically refers to Rwanda which was not oversees processing. I have no objection in principle, but again, where? Staffed by whom? And what is the domestic legal process to render people from the UK to wherever when our courts are underfunded and partially functional? 5. "Go after the people smugglers" - the option the Tories endlessly decried. This is a great idea. Many are in France. Ah, we told france to fuck off in point 2 and are about to do worse in point 6. 6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
You don't need to continue. Your proposals are crayon politics, drawn by a small child in red crayon. As always, the key to policy is that it actually has to be deliverable. Actionable. Realistic, not just "can't we tell these foreigners to fuck off".
Its a great insight into the coming Reform manifesto and deserved further commentary.
If my points were 'unworkable performative crap', you wouldn't need to respond with asinine misrepresentations or mealy mouthed acknowledgements disguised as rebukes.
I have not said 'stop paying France' have I? I have said payments should be set up in a different way that is dependent on results. You take the estimated impact on the boats of the current grants under the 'deal'. You translate that into a price per boat destroyed, smuggler arrested etc., and you agree to pay that per evidence of each outcome - you could agree to pay more than the 'going rate' as an incentive. Payment on delivery.
The previous Government already detained asylum seekers in a barge. It was perfectly servicable and comfortable. The current Government ended that - that is performative. As for other facilities, yes nimbys and Tory constituency MPs were against them - since when is that an objection for you?
Rwanda could easily have been used as a processing centre. The Government could have done so - it would have been sufficiently different from the Tories' policy 'more humane, more just' to be do-able politically. Instead they pathetically scrapped the whole scheme to make an infantile party political point, and then went bizarrely to 'learn from Claudia Meloni' on overseas processing.
Nobody EVER decried the concept of going after people smugglers, what a bizarre lie. 'Smash the gangs' was criticised as the sole strategy for solving illegal migration, and that criticism has proven valid in the event. However, even with it being the sole strategy, the police are quite clearly doing a shit job, which is why they got shown up by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pyyqep831o
I suspect Yvette Cooper is 'not getting involved in operational matters', and if she doesn't have the levers to give the police a rocket over this, she needs to get them.
Towbacks and overseas processing worked in Australia. And they are far more dangerous there. I don't see what objection France could have - they were quite clearly OK with them being in French waters, as they allowed them without hindrance. So yes, they would go back to France. And if boats don't get through, no more boats come.
Morning luv! I'm picking apart specifically to demonstrate that its unworkable crap.
Most amusing is that you're still clinging to Rwanda as something that could have worked.
The depressing thing is that you have zero interest in actually tackling the pan-European migration crisis. You just want to score political points.
No, I want the issue solved and put to bed, as it has been in Australia. Where they put the necessary policies in place (against screaming leftist objections naturally), none of which involved handwringing global summits to discuss the 'pan-pacific migrant crisis'.
If Rwanda was unworkable, why is the Government actively discussed other overseas solutions? Why did they go to Meloni to 'learn' about her policy of processing in Albania? Making it up as they go along, much like you.
Why do you purposefully try to pretend that Rwanda was the same as the other countries solutions?
Other countries discuss and occasionally implement overseas processing. Undocumented migrants arrive, are removed to a processing centre and if successful are released into the general population.
That was NOT the Rwanda scheme. Rwanda was send the migrants to Rwanda. No processing, no possibility of being successful and being released into the British population.
I have no problem with the concept of a processing centre. Rwanda was not one.
To be fair to @luckyguy88 he clearly differentiated between overseas processing and the Rwanda scheme
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda.
Hope this is a sign @Cyclefree is feeling a bit better.
Absolutely, and it's a powerful piece. I feel like I sit at the crossroads on this issue. I have a wife and a daughter and have seen and heard too many examples of men who tret women and girls as chattel. Protecting women from the predatory nature of certain men is something I actively support.
I also have involvement in the trans area. I'm bisexual so I'm part of the LGBTetc community. My eldest (non-binary but biologically male) had a trans boyfriend for a while and they're still close friends. A former colleague and good friend is a trans woman saving up for surgery.
My basic rule with rights is that if they trample on the human rights of other people they aren't rights. I support both the need for female spaces (my wife despises open changing even when everyone has the same genitalia) and to provide dignity and respect for people who genuinely have dysmorphia and are medically working their way through transition.
The problem with the trans debate is the screaming extremists at both ends of the spectrum. Absolutism is usually wrong - issues are not black and white and this one is no different. I do have to float a question though - in the race to be inclusive have we not lost sight of who we are being inclusive of?
I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig. But the trans rights row seems to lump everyone together.
Yes, but there's a problem. In a finite world, rights are likely to trample over each other.
Take toilets. There aren't enough as it is, so the idea that two categories should become three is pretty unlikely. What happens in the meantime?
At the risk of triggering the eminently triggerable guardians of lavvies and changing rooms, a reminder that there are many places where no one gives a feck. This is the single lav for all customers in The Pub, the Valetta hostelry where Ollie Reed drank and breathed his last. What Ollie's views on Trans people were I don't know, but I suspect not giving a feck may have been involved.
Plenty of micropubs in the UK only have one toilet. Of course where you have a lockable room with one trap, it isn't an issue
It is if you're burstin'!
The advantage of Fosters is you can get away with pissing in a glass because no one can tell the difference
I'm intrigued. Where did you find this Fosters that tastes as good as piss?
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
A GRC gives a trans person the legal right to a new birth certificate and passport in their gender. That's useful to avoid embarrassment in some circumstances and perhaps to provide emotional satisfaction. It's not worthless.
But it doesn't give them rights, as a woman, under the Equalities Act. But they still have rights, as trans, under the Act.
A thing that doesn't give you actionable legal rights in court is worthless by definition. They could use it as wallpaper or a writing pad, or in a pinch loo paper, but other than that it has no function.
It's not worthless by definition. Worth isn't totally dependent on "actionable legal rights in court".
As I said, it gives a trans person the legal right to a new birth certificate and passport in their gender. That's useful to avoid embarrassment in some circumstances and perhaps to provide emotional satisfaction. It's not without some worth.
...A GRC gives a trans person the legal right to a new birth certificate and passport in their gender. That's useful...perhaps to provide emotional satisfaction...
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
Seems a fair assessment.
Given that Trump always surprises on the downside I imagine that most likely outcome from Rubio's statement is that US will seek to end military support while still shaking down Ukraine for its minerals. Not sure how you make both of those propositions work at the same time, so interesting days ahead.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
As with the Brexit dramas, the Supreme Court can only interpret the law. It cannot set it.
To my mind the Supreme Court has in fact highlighted that the current law is a mismatched nonsense and must be fixed. I think it is right that some rights link to biological sex, and biological sex matters for efficient administration too, in places like the NHS. However it cannot be right that a fully transitioned trans-woman gets strip-searched by a man. That is a nonsense and we need to act quickly to ensure that everyone gets treated with dignity.
The fact that trans-women can never fully become women and gain their rights (or trans-men, men) is something to be regretted, not celebrated. They feel how they feel and they feel it deeply. The onus is on the rest of us to minimise the times they cannot be treated as they feel.
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
So in your (old) role as director, how would you police single-sex toilets at your office? A security guard outside? Cameras? Would genitals be inspected? Blood samples taken? The Supreme Court's cure might be worse than the disease. And would give a greater risk of being sued.
At least one can be sure that in the unlikely event of toilet policing coming into being, those applying for the job would be absolute wrong uns and should be put on some sort of a list.
And the women who receive this hassle are the ones who are 'different', either because they dress differently, are from a 'different' culture, or just look 'different' because they have short hair.
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It depends who succeeds him.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
Some years ago I was very anti trans people. That was until (when I was a councillor) I attended a talk organised by the Council given by a trans person who was transitioning from male to female. She told us about the psychological issues she endured. Many people transitioning attempt suicide - may be a call for help or a serious attempt. At the end I was much more sympathetic. Now my godson is transitioning and it is clearly mental anguish for her. Despite my more symathetic views to trans people I do agree the supreme court decison. But we must remember for many trans people it is a deep need to "change sex". Now having some direct knowledge I know that for my godchild it was a heart breaking issue and also incredibly hard for her "very" straght parents.
Thanks for that, madmacs.
The "but they should be treated with compassion" that everyone was professing yesterday has been notably lacking this morning.
The Process State is based on the idea that if you create enough rules and laws with enough detail, perfection can be achieved. No need for morality or compassion in decision making - just absolutely follow the perfect rule set.
This is demonstrably false - humans (and their works) are non-linear. Which is why attempts to make humans behave in a linear, predictable fashion fail so badly. And seem so inhuman - see attempts to get everyone to believe in exactly the same version of a religion/political creed.
Interesting but hardly surprising to see Trump and Meloni apparently getting on well.
Both are strong on "immigration" which is apparently at the root of all Europe's problems.
Yet I hear no practical or coherent solutions - from "stop the boats" to "re-migration", there's a lot of people talking about immigration and saying something needs to be done but I've not heard a syllable of a practical and workable solution.
More "complaints" from Britain's greatest bunch of whingers, GB News, about Sudanese refugees at a 4* hotel - okay, fine. How do you get them out of that hotel? Where do you put them while their asylum cases are being processed? I'm led to believe (it's GB News so I take it with a bucketful of salt) there are thousands more waiting in Northern France to cross the Channel. Right - how do you prevent them crossing if that's the objective?
The whole debate is couched in sensationalist, fear mongering terms - practicality and common sense are noticeable by their absence.
Is this a serious question?
Or is it another 'what are these Brexit freedoms I hear so much about?', and then you list them, and silence, and then a week or so later - 'So who can list me a single Brexit freedom?'
If it is a serious question, you can do a number of things.
If our grant rate is three times that of France, where are you going to apply? We could do that by capping asylum figures. That could be done now.
Secondly, you could stop paying France eye watering millions upfront for what seems like zero assistance, and pay them on results - per boats destroyed, migrants detained, smugglers arrested.
Thirdly, you can detain migrants in basic purpose-built or hired accommodation. Airbases, barges. The hotels have to stop. A warm bed, safety, cleanliness and food is what someone claiming asylum should be entitled to, nothing else.
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda. To make the latter work, you probably need to leave the ECHR. To make the former work, you don't necessarily, because there's no danger of refoulement if the successful claimants are shipped back to the UK.
Fifthly, you can actually go after the people smugglers. It took a massive BBC investigation to get the police to get their finger out of their arse and arrest the last one.
Sixthly, you can do tow backs. This is a cruel to be kind solution, as it does place boat people in a very stressful situation. It does have the upside of being a massive disincentive to ever get on a channel crossing, so in the long run probably save lives.
Want me to continue?
This is unworkable performative crap and I'm sure Lucky knows this. 1. "Cap asylum numbers" - the only point which isn't unreasonable 2. "Stop paying France" - with what is proposed below? 3. "Detain migrants in gulags" - where? Remember that the Tory government proposed this using disused airbases, only to have Tory MPs - some very senior - scream and howl. The proposal is to build fortified open prison camps, so again my question is where? Staffed by whom? Secured by whom? At what cost? 4. "Oversees processing" at which point he comedically refers to Rwanda which was not oversees processing. I have no objection in principle, but again, where? Staffed by whom? And what is the domestic legal process to render people from the UK to wherever when our courts are underfunded and partially functional? 5. "Go after the people smugglers" - the option the Tories endlessly decried. This is a great idea. Many are in France. Ah, we told france to fuck off in point 2 and are about to do worse in point 6. 6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
You don't need to continue. Your proposals are crayon politics, drawn by a small child in red crayon. As always, the key to policy is that it actually has to be deliverable. Actionable. Realistic, not just "can't we tell these foreigners to fuck off".
Its a great insight into the coming Reform manifesto and deserved further commentary.
If my points were 'unworkable performative crap', you wouldn't need to respond with asinine misrepresentations or mealy mouthed acknowledgements disguised as rebukes.
I have not said 'stop paying France' have I? I have said payments should be set up in a different way that is dependent on results. You take the estimated impact on the boats of the current grants under the 'deal'. You translate that into a price per boat destroyed, smuggler arrested etc., and you agree to pay that per evidence of each outcome - you could agree to pay more than the 'going rate' as an incentive. Payment on delivery.
The previous Government already detained asylum seekers in a barge. It was perfectly servicable and comfortable. The current Government ended that - that is performative. As for other facilities, yes nimbys and Tory constituency MPs were against them - since when is that an objection for you?
Rwanda could easily have been used as a processing centre. The Government could have done so - it would have been sufficiently different from the Tories' policy 'more humane, more just' to be do-able politically. Instead they pathetically scrapped the whole scheme to make an infantile party political point, and then went bizarrely to 'learn from Claudia Meloni' on overseas processing.
Nobody EVER decried the concept of going after people smugglers, what a bizarre lie. 'Smash the gangs' was criticised as the sole strategy for solving illegal migration, and that criticism has proven valid in the event. However, even with it being the sole strategy, the police are quite clearly doing a shit job, which is why they got shown up by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pyyqep831o
I suspect Yvette Cooper is 'not getting involved in operational matters', and if she doesn't have the levers to give the police a rocket over this, she needs to get them.
Towbacks and overseas processing worked in Australia. And they are far more dangerous there. I don't see what objection France could have - they were quite clearly OK with them being in French waters, as they allowed them without hindrance. So yes, they would go back to France. And if boats don't get through, no more boats come.
Morning luv! I'm picking apart specifically to demonstrate that its unworkable crap.
Most amusing is that you're still clinging to Rwanda as something that could have worked.
The depressing thing is that you have zero interest in actually tackling the pan-European migration crisis. You just want to score political points.
No, I want the issue solved and put to bed, as it has been in Australia. Where they put the necessary policies in place (against screaming leftist objections naturally), none of which involved handwringing global summits to discuss the 'pan-pacific migrant crisis'.
If Rwanda was unworkable, why is the Government actively discussed other overseas solutions? Why did they go to Meloni to 'learn' about her policy of processing in Albania? Making it up as they go along, much like you.
The missing piece of the puzzle compared to Australia is the British equivalent of Christmas Island. The logistics of sending refugees abroad is not simple and you need somewhere beyond the reach of the legal-industrial complex to warehouse them while it gets organised.
Rwanda was only one element of the Australian solution and, on its own, probably wouldn't have been workable.
Big Rish and the Gang knew all this of course. The entire policy was just something to distract red wall morons from the fact that 95%+ of the Brexitwave immigration were legal entries that the tories could have reduced any time they wanted.
Once again, I will propose my solution - West Falkland. Anyone arriving without proper paperwork gets sent there.
It would be stupendously expensive and still doesn't fix the problem of denying the refugees access to the British judicial system because they can't be shipped straight there from the Channel without landing them in the UK.
So offshore processing then. If only there were large metal objects with accommodation that can station-keep in water. Perhaps we could call it a "ship". We could put then on that "ship" thing, process them there outside UK jurisdiction, then transship them back to France. Job done.
Interesting but hardly surprising to see Trump and Meloni apparently getting on well.
Both are strong on "immigration" which is apparently at the root of all Europe's problems.
Yet I hear no practical or coherent solutions - from "stop the boats" to "re-migration", there's a lot of people talking about immigration and saying something needs to be done but I've not heard a syllable of a practical and workable solution.
More "complaints" from Britain's greatest bunch of whingers, GB News, about Sudanese refugees at a 4* hotel - okay, fine. How do you get them out of that hotel? Where do you put them while their asylum cases are being processed? I'm led to believe (it's GB News so I take it with a bucketful of salt) there are thousands more waiting in Northern France to cross the Channel. Right - how do you prevent them crossing if that's the objective?
The whole debate is couched in sensationalist, fear mongering terms - practicality and common sense are noticeable by their absence.
Is this a serious question?
Or is it another 'what are these Brexit freedoms I hear so much about?', and then you list them, and silence, and then a week or so later - 'So who can list me a single Brexit freedom?'
If it is a serious question, you can do a number of things.
If our grant rate is three times that of France, where are you going to apply? We could do that by capping asylum figures. That could be done now.
Secondly, you could stop paying France eye watering millions upfront for what seems like zero assistance, and pay them on results - per boats destroyed, migrants detained, smugglers arrested.
Thirdly, you can detain migrants in basic purpose-built or hired accommodation. Airbases, barges. The hotels have to stop. A warm bed, safety, cleanliness and food is what someone claiming asylum should be entitled to, nothing else.
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda. To make the latter work, you probably need to leave the ECHR. To make the former work, you don't necessarily, because there's no danger of refoulement if the successful claimants are shipped back to the UK.
Fifthly, you can actually go after the people smugglers. It took a massive BBC investigation to get the police to get their finger out of their arse and arrest the last one.
Sixthly, you can do tow backs. This is a cruel to be kind solution, as it does place boat people in a very stressful situation. It does have the upside of being a massive disincentive to ever get on a channel crossing, so in the long run probably save lives.
Want me to continue?
This is unworkable performative crap and I'm sure Lucky knows this. 1. "Cap asylum numbers" - the only point which isn't unreasonable 2. "Stop paying France" - with what is proposed below? 3. "Detain migrants in gulags" - where? Remember that the Tory government proposed this using disused airbases, only to have Tory MPs - some very senior - scream and howl. The proposal is to build fortified open prison camps, so again my question is where? Staffed by whom? Secured by whom? At what cost? 4. "Oversees processing" at which point he comedically refers to Rwanda which was not oversees processing. I have no objection in principle, but again, where? Staffed by whom? And what is the domestic legal process to render people from the UK to wherever when our courts are underfunded and partially functional? 5. "Go after the people smugglers" - the option the Tories endlessly decried. This is a great idea. Many are in France. Ah, we told france to fuck off in point 2 and are about to do worse in point 6. 6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
You don't need to continue. Your proposals are crayon politics, drawn by a small child in red crayon. As always, the key to policy is that it actually has to be deliverable. Actionable. Realistic, not just "can't we tell these foreigners to fuck off".
Its a great insight into the coming Reform manifesto and deserved further commentary.
If my points were 'unworkable performative crap', you wouldn't need to respond with asinine misrepresentations or mealy mouthed acknowledgements disguised as rebukes.
I have not said 'stop paying France' have I? I have said payments should be set up in a different way that is dependent on results. You take the estimated impact on the boats of the current grants under the 'deal'. You translate that into a price per boat destroyed, smuggler arrested etc., and you agree to pay that per evidence of each outcome - you could agree to pay more than the 'going rate' as an incentive. Payment on delivery.
The previous Government already detained asylum seekers in a barge. It was perfectly servicable and comfortable. The current Government ended that - that is performative. As for other facilities, yes nimbys and Tory constituency MPs were against them - since when is that an objection for you?
Rwanda could easily have been used as a processing centre. The Government could have done so - it would have been sufficiently different from the Tories' policy 'more humane, more just' to be do-able politically. Instead they pathetically scrapped the whole scheme to make an infantile party political point, and then went bizarrely to 'learn from Claudia Meloni' on overseas processing.
Nobody EVER decried the concept of going after people smugglers, what a bizarre lie. 'Smash the gangs' was criticised as the sole strategy for solving illegal migration, and that criticism has proven valid in the event. However, even with it being the sole strategy, the police are quite clearly doing a shit job, which is why they got shown up by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pyyqep831o
I suspect Yvette Cooper is 'not getting involved in operational matters', and if she doesn't have the levers to give the police a rocket over this, she needs to get them.
Towbacks and overseas processing worked in Australia. And they are far more dangerous there. I don't see what objection France could have - they were quite clearly OK with them being in French waters, as they allowed them without hindrance. So yes, they would go back to France. And if boats don't get through, no more boats come.
Morning luv! I'm picking apart specifically to demonstrate that its unworkable crap.
Most amusing is that you're still clinging to Rwanda as something that could have worked.
The depressing thing is that you have zero interest in actually tackling the pan-European migration crisis. You just want to score political points.
No, I want the issue solved and put to bed, as it has been in Australia. Where they put the necessary policies in place (against screaming leftist objections naturally), none of which involved handwringing global summits to discuss the 'pan-pacific migrant crisis'.
If Rwanda was unworkable, why is the Government actively discussed other overseas solutions? Why did they go to Meloni to 'learn' about her policy of processing in Albania? Making it up as they go along, much like you.
The missing piece of the puzzle compared to Australia is the British equivalent of Christmas Island. The logistics of sending refugees abroad is not simple and you need somewhere beyond the reach of the legal-industrial complex to warehouse them while it gets organised.
Rwanda was only one element of the Australian solution and, on its own, probably wouldn't have been workable.
Big Rish and the Gang knew all this of course. The entire policy was just something to distract red wall morons from the fact that 95%+ of the Brexitwave immigration were legal entries that the tories could have reduced any time they wanted.
Once again, I will propose my solution - West Falkland. Anyone arriving without proper paperwork gets sent there.
It would be stupendously expensive and still doesn't fix the problem of denying the refugees access to the British judicial system because they can't be shipped straight there from the Channel without landing them in the UK.
So offshore processing then. If only there were large metal objects with accommodation that can station-keep in water. Perhaps we could call it a "ship". We could put then on that "ship" thing, process them there outside UK jurisdiction, then transship them back to France. Job done.
Ships that are safe and habitable for humans are expensive to operate. See the price of cruises.
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It depends who succeeds him.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
Thinking about the Soviet succession planning in 1924, 1953 and 1982, a bit of a case of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
It is settled, any company or organisation not complying with this legal ruling will find themselves on the wrong end of various law suits until they comply. The law is clear, men with GRCs do not have the same rights as women. A GRC doesn't make XY magically turn into XX. The Tories should pledge to repeal the GRA 2004 entirely, it's worthless anyway.
A GRC gives a trans person the legal right to a new birth certificate and passport in their gender. That's useful to avoid embarrassment in some circumstances and perhaps to provide emotional satisfaction. It's not worthless.
But it doesn't give them rights, as a woman, under the Equalities Act. But they still have rights, as trans, under the Act.
A thing that doesn't give you actionable legal rights in court is worthless by definition. They could use it as wallpaper or a writing pad, or in a pinch loo paper, but other than that it has no function.
It's not worthless by definition. Worth isn't totally dependent on "actionable legal rights in court".
As I said, it gives a trans person the legal right to a new birth certificate and passport in their gender. That's useful to avoid embarrassment in some circumstances and perhaps to provide emotional satisfaction. It's not without some worth.
Personally, I'd restrict a GRC to people who have had the op, and include it in the definition of "woman" in the Equalities Act. That seems practical and fair to me. Probably too sensible.
And it's not going to happen. There are other more important political priorities.
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It depends who succeeds him.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
Thinking about the Soviet succession planning in 1924, 1953 and 1982, a bit of a case of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
You said “succession planning”, you meant to say “a bunch of monkeys in a salad bar”
My friend Lauren will physically transition to be physically female. By which point I would hope that even the most strident activists wouldn't be demanding that a biologically transformed woman be denied entry to certain toilets etc.
I think that's naive. The entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that i) one's status is settled at birth and does not change, and ii) single-sex spaces are based on the status at birth. There is no "my friend Lauren" exception.
As I pointed out to you the other day, if somebody like "my friend Lauren" used a single-sex female toilet, then the organizers of that toilet could be sued and under the new ruling the organizers would lose.
Perhaps more toilets will be converted into unisex, which has occurred in an M&S near us?
Will trans men be forced to use female toilets? Will females be upset by them as well?
That is a question. This is Balian Buschbaum, a pole vaulter.
Do you think Balian should be using the male or female toilets?
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Some years ago I was very anti trans people. That was until (when I was a councillor) I attended a talk organised by the Council given by a trans person who was transitioning from male to female. She told us about the psychological issues she endured. Many people transitioning attempt suicide - may be a call for help or a serious attempt. At the end I was much more sympathetic. Now my godson is transitioning and it is clearly mental anguish for her. Despite my more symathetic views to trans people I do agree the supreme court decison. But we must remember for many trans people it is a deep need to "change sex". Now having some direct knowledge I know that for my godchild it was a heart breaking issue and also incredibly hard for her "very" straght parents.
Thanks for that, madmacs.
The "but they should be treated with compassion" that everyone was professing yesterday has been notably lacking this morning.
And on the day that many of us commemorate how one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change.
I don't know what the mutually-compassionate compromise looks like here. Besides, I don't have much of a dog in this fight, and if told to butt out I would probably have to shrug my shoulders and comply.
But we're not there now, and I suspect it's going to be a long time before anyone dares touch the question again.
Interesting but hardly surprising to see Trump and Meloni apparently getting on well.
Both are strong on "immigration" which is apparently at the root of all Europe's problems.
Yet I hear no practical or coherent solutions - from "stop the boats" to "re-migration", there's a lot of people talking about immigration and saying something needs to be done but I've not heard a syllable of a practical and workable solution.
More "complaints" from Britain's greatest bunch of whingers, GB News, about Sudanese refugees at a 4* hotel - okay, fine. How do you get them out of that hotel? Where do you put them while their asylum cases are being processed? I'm led to believe (it's GB News so I take it with a bucketful of salt) there are thousands more waiting in Northern France to cross the Channel. Right - how do you prevent them crossing if that's the objective?
The whole debate is couched in sensationalist, fear mongering terms - practicality and common sense are noticeable by their absence.
Is this a serious question?
Or is it another 'what are these Brexit freedoms I hear so much about?', and then you list them, and silence, and then a week or so later - 'So who can list me a single Brexit freedom?'
If it is a serious question, you can do a number of things.
If our grant rate is three times that of France, where are you going to apply? We could do that by capping asylum figures. That could be done now.
Secondly, you could stop paying France eye watering millions upfront for what seems like zero assistance, and pay them on results - per boats destroyed, migrants detained, smugglers arrested.
Thirdly, you can detain migrants in basic purpose-built or hired accommodation. Airbases, barges. The hotels have to stop. A warm bed, safety, cleanliness and food is what someone claiming asylum should be entitled to, nothing else.
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda. To make the latter work, you probably need to leave the ECHR. To make the former work, you don't necessarily, because there's no danger of refoulement if the successful claimants are shipped back to the UK.
Fifthly, you can actually go after the people smugglers. It took a massive BBC investigation to get the police to get their finger out of their arse and arrest the last one.
Sixthly, you can do tow backs. This is a cruel to be kind solution, as it does place boat people in a very stressful situation. It does have the upside of being a massive disincentive to ever get on a channel crossing, so in the long run probably save lives.
Want me to continue?
This is unworkable performative crap and I'm sure Lucky knows this. 1. "Cap asylum numbers" - the only point which isn't unreasonable 2. "Stop paying France" - with what is proposed below? 3. "Detain migrants in gulags" - where? Remember that the Tory government proposed this using disused airbases, only to have Tory MPs - some very senior - scream and howl. The proposal is to build fortified open prison camps, so again my question is where? Staffed by whom? Secured by whom? At what cost? 4. "Oversees processing" at which point he comedically refers to Rwanda which was not oversees processing. I have no objection in principle, but again, where? Staffed by whom? And what is the domestic legal process to render people from the UK to wherever when our courts are underfunded and partially functional? 5. "Go after the people smugglers" - the option the Tories endlessly decried. This is a great idea. Many are in France. Ah, we told france to fuck off in point 2 and are about to do worse in point 6. 6. "Do tow backs" - also known as "drowning". Who will be doing the tow backs? Coast Guard and the Navy are not only not equipped but also pointed out that such orders would be illegal last time this was seriously suggested. Even if you manage to only drown a few boats the rest arrive back into France who would need to be cooperative. See point 2.
You don't need to continue. Your proposals are crayon politics, drawn by a small child in red crayon. As always, the key to policy is that it actually has to be deliverable. Actionable. Realistic, not just "can't we tell these foreigners to fuck off".
Its a great insight into the coming Reform manifesto and deserved further commentary.
If my points were 'unworkable performative crap', you wouldn't need to respond with asinine misrepresentations or mealy mouthed acknowledgements disguised as rebukes.
I have not said 'stop paying France' have I? I have said payments should be set up in a different way that is dependent on results. You take the estimated impact on the boats of the current grants under the 'deal'. You translate that into a price per boat destroyed, smuggler arrested etc., and you agree to pay that per evidence of each outcome - you could agree to pay more than the 'going rate' as an incentive. Payment on delivery.
The previous Government already detained asylum seekers in a barge. It was perfectly servicable and comfortable. The current Government ended that - that is performative. As for other facilities, yes nimbys and Tory constituency MPs were against them - since when is that an objection for you?
Rwanda could easily have been used as a processing centre. The Government could have done so - it would have been sufficiently different from the Tories' policy 'more humane, more just' to be do-able politically. Instead they pathetically scrapped the whole scheme to make an infantile party political point, and then went bizarrely to 'learn from Claudia Meloni' on overseas processing.
Nobody EVER decried the concept of going after people smugglers, what a bizarre lie. 'Smash the gangs' was criticised as the sole strategy for solving illegal migration, and that criticism has proven valid in the event. However, even with it being the sole strategy, the police are quite clearly doing a shit job, which is why they got shown up by the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pyyqep831o
I suspect Yvette Cooper is 'not getting involved in operational matters', and if she doesn't have the levers to give the police a rocket over this, she needs to get them.
Towbacks and overseas processing worked in Australia. And they are far more dangerous there. I don't see what objection France could have - they were quite clearly OK with them being in French waters, as they allowed them without hindrance. So yes, they would go back to France. And if boats don't get through, no more boats come.
Morning luv! I'm picking apart specifically to demonstrate that its unworkable crap.
Most amusing is that you're still clinging to Rwanda as something that could have worked.
The depressing thing is that you have zero interest in actually tackling the pan-European migration crisis. You just want to score political points.
No, I want the issue solved and put to bed, as it has been in Australia. Where they put the necessary policies in place (against screaming leftist objections naturally), none of which involved handwringing global summits to discuss the 'pan-pacific migrant crisis'.
If Rwanda was unworkable, why is the Government actively discussed other overseas solutions? Why did they go to Meloni to 'learn' about her policy of processing in Albania? Making it up as they go along, much like you.
The missing piece of the puzzle compared to Australia is the British equivalent of Christmas Island. The logistics of sending refugees abroad is not simple and you need somewhere beyond the reach of the legal-industrial complex to warehouse them while it gets organised.
Rwanda was only one element of the Australian solution and, on its own, probably wouldn't have been workable.
Big Rish and the Gang knew all this of course. The entire policy was just something to distract red wall morons from the fact that 95%+ of the Brexitwave immigration were legal entries that the tories could have reduced any time they wanted.
Once again, I will propose my solution - West Falkland. Anyone arriving without proper paperwork gets sent there.
It would be stupendously expensive and still doesn't fix the problem of denying the refugees access to the British judicial system because they can't be shipped straight there from the Channel without landing them in the UK.
So offshore processing then. If only there were large metal objects with accommodation that can station-keep in water. Perhaps we could call it a "ship". We could put then on that "ship" thing, process them there outside UK jurisdiction, then transship them back to France. Job done.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It depends who succeeds him.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
Zelenskyy has occasionally posited that VVP is not long for this world. Is this trolling or is there considered to be something in it?
...And on the day that many of us commemorate how one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change....
Pi Day is March 14th, Star Wars Day is May 4th, Towel Day and Geek Pride Day[1] is May 25th. Which day are you referring to?
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It depends who succeeds him.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
Zelenskyy has occasionally posited that VVP is not long for this world. Is this trolling or is there considered to be something in it?
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It depends who succeeds him.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
Doesn't history show that likely candidates often do not get the job?
My own little piece of Kremlinology on this: Putin owns this war. He cannot back down, even if he wanted, but he is the only person who can stop the war, by stopping it. But that would be the end of him. Others are less constrained.
A new dictator would be facing significant issues: his new regime would likely be politically unstable, in the middle of an economic crisis, and a war that is killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of his own people. They would need stability, and continuing the war would probably not bring stability. Stopping the war, even if they give little or no land back, in return for sanctions being lifted, would give the country, the economy and their regime a massive lift.
That's why I think Putin's replacement, unless it is hand-picked by Putin himself, might well want to extricate themselves from his Ukrainian mess.
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It depends who succeeds him.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
Zelenskyy has occasionally posited that VVP is not long for this world. Is this trolling or is there considered to be something in it?
Around Covid there was a lot of speculation Putin had any number of diseases and very long tables. But Putin is past his three score and ten so his death from old age would be unsurprising. Likewise Presidents Xi and Trump.
"The sorry saga is a strategic debacle. Russia is in scarcely better shape than it was in early 1917. The US defence intelligence agency says Vladimir Putin’s motley forces are facing operational disintegration and cannot keep going for more than a few months."
The Kremlin’s rainy day fund has run out of money."
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It depends who succeeds him.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
Zelenskyy has occasionally posited that VVP is not long for this world. Is this trolling or is there considered to be something in it?
Sigh, this is giving Russia the green light to finish the job.
US ready to walk away from peace efforts within days, Rubio warns
Some alarming rhetoric coming from the US secretary of state this morning, following his meeting with European partners in Paris yesterday.
Marco Rubio said just moments ago from the French capital that the US will walk away from its efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine unless there are clear signs of progress in the coming days.
"We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this [peace deal] is doable in the short term, because if it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," he said.
"We're not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end," he added.
Unless the Russians capture Kyiv they aren't finishing the job and unless Ukraine forces the Russians out of the Donbass they aren't either.
So no peace deal just means continued stalemate
And continued war. Which, unless something changes, Russia will win, especially if they have North Korean and Chinese or Kazak support. Incidentally I rather doubt the weight of the last two. What needs to happen is for Putin to die. His colours are nailed to the mast, as I understand it, but whether his successors will be so obtuse I doubt. Although, of course, Kyiv/Kiev means a lot to Russians, especially the Orthodox Church.
Russia won't win unless they capture Kyiv, which was their initial plan and failed in 2022. Otherwise the only likely outcome is a stalemate along current lines, especially as even absent the US Nato nations are still arming Ukraine. China is also far too busy with their trade war with Trump's US to send arms to Trump friend Putin.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
It depends who succeeds him.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
Zelenskyy has occasionally posited that VVP is not long for this world. Is this trolling or is there considered to be something in it?
VVP is 72 so possibly. VAZ is a pathological liar so possibly not.
...I can see a world of difference between people who are seriously and medically altering their bodies to become the gender they believe they really are, and a bloke wearing a frock and a wig...
...Perhaps a certificate to recognise the ressignment of gender would have been useful to distinguish between the two groups. But after the Supreme Court decision it appears such an instrument bestows no rights enforceable in a court...
The GRC was meant to be the State saying “we recognise that you wish to be treated as X”.
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
Quite so
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
Last time you mentioned her she was a pipe-smoking man in his forties before transition. Try to keep the details consistent (incidentally you add more details over time: I don't know if that means you're making it up or that you are not).
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
I really did not say this you lying fuck
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
I'm pretty sure you mentioned pipe-smoking, which Is why I remember it: it was such an odd detail. You stated off with a taxi-driver friend who had said something, then mentioned a transitioning grandchild of acquaintances who were distressed, then mentioned a friend, then you said you had driven that friend to the hospital for surgery, and now you have named her both before-and-after Given your prediliction for escalation, I assumed the next iteration is for you to have cut her cock off with a rusty knife and an elastic band, but that's up to you.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
Oh do fuck off
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend 2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown 3. Born Julian now Julia 4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc 5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process 6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since 7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say 8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
I wasn't implying you were lying. I was implying you escalated your anecdotes in a drug filled haze, which you do. You live in a colorful world flitting hither and yon like a drunken butterfly and relate anecdotes similarly embroidered. It is not possible at any given moment to tell whether you are lying, high, or simply relating extraordinary facts.
Here’s an excellent analysis- by a lefty - of how the whole recent extreme Trans campaign has made things much worse for trans people. With opinions going from really tolerant to really quite intolerant in the last five years
For what it’s worth @Cyclefree my girlfriend (who is not very politically engaged) is very upset with the Supreme Court decision. A lot of my other women (not trans women) friends are also upset with it.
It isn’t a men vs women issue.
All the SC has done is to try to untangle what parliament has done and inform parliament and us what it is. It has expressed no preferences or ideologies. They have clarified current law. Discussion of the SC should be confined to the detail of how it has reasoned and argued in trying to comprehend a difficult to comprehend parliament.
It is for government and parliament to decide if they should amend what they have already set in place.
There is no good reason to be either pleased or upset with the SC. Keep all that for parliament and government. And our SC should not be confused with the massively politicised SCOTUS.
Lawyer Gallowgate's homework can be to explain this to his girlfriend; once that's done, if it's not too exciting he can explain to her why the SC recently declined to revisit and overrule Boardman v Phipps.
Comments
The existence of transgender individuals is inconvenient for not a few worldviews.
Toilets are definitely trickier due to space constraints.
·
57m
So the Trump administration are saying that unless Europe accepts their plan to help Russia they'll...help Russia. If you're trying to get people to do what you want, it generally helps if your carrot is different from your stick.
https://bsky.app/profile/ruthdeyermond.bsky.social/post/3ln3dqnjmdk2a
That shouldn’t undermine the rights of women.
What has happened here is a small group of trans activists aggressively pushing their agenda (selfID) regardless of the rights of others. It has ended up with a bright line being drawn that is not necessarily to their advantage.
Pre/post op - while I’m sure not 100% perfect in all cases - was always the simplest “test” for determining the right to access women-only spaces
I'd say that the Unison motion skates over a key part of the question by not defining what it means by "trans man" and "trans woman", unless that was stated.
A long flight to some chilly prefab in west Falkland will cost a few percent of that. What’s more, within weeks of this becoming policy - and strictly enforced - I bet 90% of the boats will disappear
The Falklanders might complain but then all we gotta do is remind them who defends them from Argentina and who maintains their now lavish income - $80k per capita per year? - and they will shut up
This is their way of repaying us for the war of 1982
*) The prisoners may be further away from their homes, meaning prisoners may not be able to get friends and family visiting as easily. (This is an important thing IMO, and AIUI prisons should at least attempt to keep most prisoners near their homes.)
*) If the wing only contains a few trans prisoners, that might be amount to segregation: particularly if they are the only prisoner.
*) It would be expensive.
Perhaps if the trans person has been convicted of a sexual offence, or has a history of sexual offences, then that should be treated differently than if they are only in prison for a non-sexual offence, e.g. fraud?
He could use the Equalities Act to gain access to a female toilet on the grounds that he is a biological woman but come on, he wouldn't, would he? In practice. In the real world.
What the clarification prevents is a "man in a frock" i.e. an obvious man pretending to be a woman perhaps for a lark or a kick, using the Equalities Act to demand access to a female toilet on the basis of his self identification as of female gender. The clarification stops this. And a good thing too.
How many people have good post op trans friends on here? I do. Julia nee Julian. Met him (then) at uni, he transitioned in his 30s, he went through two years of living as a woman before the NHS would agree to surgery and give him/her a GRC
He is now she and just got married to her female partner. She is happily she
She’s livid about the modern breed of TRAs and the demands for self id without surgery etc. She thinks it’s mad and bad for trans women like her and she says the old system worked fine
So there you go. Take it up with HER
But the other big issue that has distorted the debate is prisons, where men who are not trans until convicted have a strong incentive to falsely claim they are trans women in order to get into a women's prison which are generally perceived as safer than men's (and with recent news of prison attacks in mind, that is probably a correct view). I'd imagine most cases of self-identification causing problems is in this group. And it's not like convicted criminals have a high reputation for honesty in the first place.
On point 1 could do something like free train fare for x visits per year if over y miles from home as some mitigation.
It’s done. The Supreme Court judgment was an earthquake - part of the tectonic shift against Woke - and what we are now experiencing are the aftershocks. They happen. But they subside over time
But it doesn't give them rights, as a woman, under the Equalities Act. But they still have rights, as trans, under the Act.
The "but they should be treated with compassion" that everyone was professing yesterday has been notably lacking this morning.
In the past I have wondered if a away around this is to issue another certificate for people undergoing that 18-month or two-year period, allowing them rights to use the facilities of their new gender identity. This will continue to be in place until it is removed (e.g. because they choose, or doctors/courts do) or they have undergone the surgery and are now their new gender identity.
I daresay there are problems with this approach as well...
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).
The SC ruling has clarified the EA at the cost of neutering the GRA.
But this brings us back to my question of earlier in the week: does she shit in the Ladies or the Gents? According to the SC ruling she is a biological male whose legal rights are not changed by her GRC and no longer has the right to enter female single-sex spaces. Consequently will you make her poo in the boys' toilets or does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception?
Except anywhere with a urinal will have to remain male-only to avoid charges of exhibitionism or indecent exposure.
But this makes women worse off than before the SC Judgment, so probably best to do what we've done for centuries and leave toilets to self-policing by users.
I doubt even a successor to Putin would give up the land Russia now occupies in Ukraine
You set in place policies and procedures, and if someone thinks those policies or procedures are being broken there is a named individual or a safeguarding email address etc that concerns can be sent to which they get investigated and dealt with properly.
And if someone is violating safeguarding procedures they can get further training if accidental, or if serious and deliberate might face disciplinary action upto and including termination of employment.
Safeguarding exists for a reason. It's not a novel concept.
(Some people want to remove or reduce that time period, and I know a friend who transitioned hated its length. But a transitioning period seems sensible to me to allow the subject and their family/friends/acquaintances get used to their new gender identity. In addition, a few people do decide not to transition during that period, often because of side-effects of the drugs.)
'C'mon, get yer junk out, it's the law you know!'
Fourthly, you can have overseas processing or overseas housing for asylum seekers, a la Rwanda.
@NewsWire_US
·
13h
FDA is making plans to end routine food safety inspections — CBS News
As I said, it gives a trans person the legal right to a new birth certificate and passport in their gender. That's useful to avoid embarrassment in some circumstances and perhaps to provide emotional satisfaction. It's not without some worth.
(runs, hides under table)
Given that Trump always surprises on the downside I imagine that most likely outcome from Rubio's statement is that US will seek to end military support while still shaking down Ukraine for its minerals. Not sure how you make both of those propositions work at the same time, so interesting days ahead.
The story is true and it stayed consistent for that reason
Grrrr
To my mind the Supreme Court has in fact highlighted that the current law is a mismatched nonsense and must be fixed. I think it is right that some rights link to biological sex, and biological sex matters for efficient administration too, in places like the NHS. However it cannot be right that a fully transitioned trans-woman gets strip-searched by a man. That is a nonsense and we need to act quickly to ensure that everyone gets treated with dignity.
The fact that trans-women can never fully become women and gain their rights (or trans-men, men) is something to be regretted, not celebrated. They feel how they feel and they feel it deeply. The onus is on the rest of us to minimise the times they cannot be treated as they feel.
https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/11/01/cis-woman-mistaken-transgender-records-being-berated-bathroom (*) And there are many others.
And the women who receive this hassle are the ones who are 'different', either because they dress differently, are from a 'different' culture, or just look 'different' because they have short hair.
(*) That video is quite something.
Of all of the likely candidates, I think only Mishustin would be interested in winding up the SMO for the current gains. Medvedev or Dyumin would be considerably more belligerent and have significantly less of VVP's cautious probity for legalities. Sobyanin has spent his entire political career agreeing with whatever the last thing VVP said was. So it's almost impossible to guess what he'd do were he forced to have an original thought of his own.
It's hard to see beyond those four, but who the fuck knows really.
На бумаге было гладко, но забыли про овраги. As Tolstoy wrote. There's no effective direct translation to English but the sense is: Fine in theory, probably bollocks in reality. This encapsulates, with total fidelity, the VVP succession planning.
This is demonstrably false - humans (and their works) are non-linear. Which is why attempts to make humans behave in a linear, predictable fashion fail so badly. And seem so inhuman - see attempts to get everyone to believe in exactly the same version of a religion/political creed.
And it's not going to happen. There are other more important political priorities.
But you haven't answered my question: should she shit in the Ladies' or Gents' now? Does she have a "your friend Lauren" exception in your eyes?
I don't know what the mutually-compassionate compromise looks like here. Besides, I don't have much of a dog in this fight, and if told to butt out I would probably have to shrug my shoulders and comply.
But we're not there now, and I suspect it's going to be a long time before anyone dares touch the question again.
1. She (then he) was one of my best friends at uni - still a good friend
2. She supported (still does) Leicester city - her hometown
3. Born Julian now Julia
4. Transitioned in her 30s. Was before quite stereotypically male in some ways, even smoked a pipe at one point, also loved snooker darts etc
5. Did her op at Charing X hospital where I went to see her during the process
6. Did her two years living as woman, then got op on NHS and GRC and has lived as a woman, with relative happiness, and no apparent regrets, ever since
7. Her attitudes to modern TRAs are exactly as I say
8. She recently married her long term female partner (we all guessed they were in an intimate relationship but for some reason they would never talk about it - I’m glad she has now for her/their sake)
There. That’s it. That’s the case. I resent the imputation I’m lying so go fuck yourself with a fossilised baseball bat, twat
https://youtu.be/hRbyP45LFqk?si=JmZTn96qRnkEOXnb
My own little piece of Kremlinology on this: Putin owns this war. He cannot back down, even if he wanted, but he is the only person who can stop the war, by stopping it. But that would be the end of him. Others are less constrained.
A new dictator would be facing significant issues: his new regime would likely be politically unstable, in the middle of an economic crisis, and a war that is killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of his own people. They would need stability, and continuing the war would probably not bring stability. Stopping the war, even if they give little or no land back, in return for sanctions being lifted, would give the country, the economy and their regime a massive lift.
That's why I think Putin's replacement, unless it is hand-picked by Putin himself, might well want to extricate themselves from his Ukrainian mess.
The Kremlin’s rainy day fund has run out of money."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/04/17/donald-trumps-mysterious-obsession-with-ukraines-shale-gas/
The polling now:
https://x.com/shaunjlawson/status/1913176711430066350?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
The polling back then:
https://x.com/shaunjlawson/status/1913177349438218241?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
A dramatic shift AGAINST trans rights
My friend Julia is correct. The whole campaign has been a disaster for trans people themselves
It is for government and parliament to decide if they should amend what they have already set in place.
There is no good reason to be either pleased or upset with the SC. Keep all that for parliament and government. And our SC should not be confused with the massively politicised SCOTUS.
Lawyer Gallowgate's homework can be to explain this to his girlfriend; once that's done, if it's not too exciting he can explain to her why the SC recently declined to revisit and overrule Boardman v Phipps.