'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
There's also a distinction between absurd, and uninterpretable. Which lawyers know only too well.
That is to say, the Pope can invite up to 120 to any College meeting, but in the absence of a Pope any qualifying cardinal has the right to attend and vote.
Some may choose not to, of course.
Just have 15 rounds of musical chairs.
Or 134 rounds to simplify and enliven the whole pope-choosing process?
Televised...
Pope Idol? Get Cowell involved. Do a Vatican's Got Talent thing.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
There's also a distinction between absurd, and uninterpretable. Which lawyers know only too well.
Some people have made a fortune on the distinction between unlawful and illegal.
Paul Krugman: "If you were a foreign investor, would you want to bet on America right now? Would you even want to visit to look at investment prospects, given the risk that you might be imprisoned by ICE because you once sent a text critical of Trump?"
Imagine Donald Trump getting a hold of interest rates and QE. Game over.
A friend asked whether Pete Hegseth’s behaviour should surprise us, and I thought the answer was no. It was clear when he was nominated that he was entirely unsuitable for the role. I don’t know that anyone predicted the precise incompetence we’ve seen, but it was clear he was not competent.
This set me thinking as to who the most obviously unsuitable Trump nominations were. Matt Gaetz is clearly number one, so unsuitable that even Trump gave up on pushing the nomination. Then we can make the rest of a top four with Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. Any advance on those picks?
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
Please don't counter Boris Johnson defence bollocks with tangible fact.
"For this reason, compensation remain a central part of resolving the comfort women issue," she said. "It’s not just about the money. It’s about Japan recognizing its wrongdoing through a meaningful and concrete gesture."
Kim also argued that the issue should not be viewed solely as a bilateral dispute between Korea and Japan, but as a universal human rights concern rooted in the systemic abuse of women during times of war.
"This isn’t just a Korean issue or a matter of diplomacy between two countries," she said. "It’s a global issue. Sexual violence against women continues to occur in conflicts around the world even today."
She added that Japan’s response to the issue has the potential to send a powerful global message — much like Germany’s acknowledgment of its past human rights violations — by setting an international precedent for accountability and historical reckoning.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
Please don't counter Boris Johnson defence bollocks with tangible fact.
Wait until they find out that Boris Johnson permitted an exception for election campaigning in 2021.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
Remind me, who wrote them? Starmer or St. Boris.
They're all ****ing idiots and the only shame of Starmer getting off was that he would have had personal experience of how dreadful the laws he supported actually were.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
There's also a distinction between absurd, and uninterpretable. Which lawyers know only too well.
Some people have made a fortune on the distinction between unlawful and illegal.
NEW: Maggie Chapman MSP has doubled down on her remarks about the Supreme Court being “bigoted and hateful” - no resignation from the equalities committee in Holyrood and no apologies. More to come @LBC@LBCNewsScot@LBCNews
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
Exactly. Absurd and uninterpretable. As we saw from our lawmakers.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That is everything to do with knowing the law. Everything.
The trouble with this, and @TSE's response (laws were different) is that in so doing it accepts the premise that these laws were perfectly sensible, changed according to circumstance, and all that needed to happen was for people to understand them when they changed.
These were laws which penalised women having coffee together on a park bench, or told you who you could have in your own home at any one time, or that you couldn't go to visit your sick grandmother.
The issue I have with it all is not the content at one time or another, it is the wholesale and egregious violation of our civil liberties.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
Exactly. Absurd and uninterpretable. As we saw from our lawmakers.
They should have set fire to them all.
I once again ask my earlier question which went unanswered correctly (you blamed Starmer).
Which halfwit Prime Minister wrote these "absurd and uninterpretable" laws?
On topic: smoked haddock with poached egg and proper crunchy wholemeal toast - lavished with salty butter - is the breakfast of emperors
I always have it at posh hotels if it’s available
Great breakfast. My summer lunch alternative with Smoked Haddock is SH with new potatoes crushed with salty butter and pepper, beetroot and horseradish. Perfect flavour mix.
Mmm. Sounds good. Smoked haddock is lush
When you have that breakfast and you break the yolk and the golden goodness mixes with the fishy umami and you mop it up with salty crunchy toast. Then a gulp of strong tea?
Omg
Sets you up for the whole day but in a brilliant healthy way that a full English does not. A full English weighs you down and you need a nap
It's Bond's favourite meal of the day.
"Breakfast is prepared by May, his Scottish housekeeper and she takes it to him on a tray with a copy of the Times. At home his breakfast consists of: Two cups of very strong coffee from De Bry in New Oxford Street brewed in an American Chemex and drunk black without sugar. A brown speckled egg from a French Marans hen boiled for 3 1/3 minutes served in a dark blue egg cup with a gold ring round the top. Two thick slices of wholewheat toast with Jersey butter and the choice of Tiptree “Little Scarlet” strawberry jam, Cooper’s vintage oxford marmalade and Norwegian Heather Honey from Fortnum’s. We also learn that the eggs are provided by a friend of May and that Bond dislikes white eggs. The coffee pot and the silver on the tray are Queen Anne, and the china is Minton, of the same dark blue and gold and white as the egg-cup."
The reason why Bond works so well here is that it goes further than just sex and violence: it's sex, sadism and snobbery, which explains precisely why it's so intoxicating to us Brits.
It’s such a weird dated snobbery. We’re meant to be impressed that he takes Tiptree jam, and Cooper’s marmalade. Lol
I believe in one bond book he has steak chips and Liebfraumilch wine
Of course it was all exotic to impoverished Brits in the postwar era
I have stayed away from the interminable bathroom debates, but I do wonder if Rachel reeves is now allowed to pee in the Chancellor's private urinal, or not?
On topic: smoked haddock with poached egg and proper crunchy wholemeal toast - lavished with salty butter - is the breakfast of emperors
I always have it at posh hotels if it’s available
Great breakfast. My summer lunch alternative with Smoked Haddock is SH with new potatoes crushed with salty butter and pepper, beetroot and horseradish. Perfect flavour mix.
Mmm. Sounds good. Smoked haddock is lush
When you have that breakfast and you break the yolk and the golden goodness mixes with the fishy umami and you mop it up with salty crunchy toast. Then a gulp of strong tea?
Omg
Sets you up for the whole day but in a brilliant healthy way that a full English does not. A full English weighs you down and you need a nap
It's Bond's favourite meal of the day.
"Breakfast is prepared by May, his Scottish housekeeper and she takes it to him on a tray with a copy of the Times. At home his breakfast consists of: Two cups of very strong coffee from De Bry in New Oxford Street brewed in an American Chemex and drunk black without sugar. A brown speckled egg from a French Marans hen boiled for 3 1/3 minutes served in a dark blue egg cup with a gold ring round the top. Two thick slices of wholewheat toast with Jersey butter and the choice of Tiptree “Little Scarlet” strawberry jam, Cooper’s vintage oxford marmalade and Norwegian Heather Honey from Fortnum’s. We also learn that the eggs are provided by a friend of May and that Bond dislikes white eggs. The coffee pot and the silver on the tray are Queen Anne, and the china is Minton, of the same dark blue and gold and white as the egg-cup."
The reason why Bond works so well here is that it goes further than just sex and violence: it's sex, sadism and snobbery, which explains precisely why it's so intoxicating to us Brits.
It’s such a weird dated snobbery. We’re meant to be impressed that he takes Tiptree jam, and Cooper’s marmalade. Lol
I believe in one bond book he has steak chips and Liebfraumilch wine
Of course it was all exotic to impoverished Brits in the postwar era
I have stayed away from the interminable bathroom debates, but I do wonder if Rachel reeves is now allowed to pee in the Chancellor's private urinal, or not?
It's nice having Carlotta back. We somewhat forgot the importance of toilet politics during her absence.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
There is no reason to repeal the GRA. The GRA simply doesn't override the Equality Act.
I'm not advocating that but there is now a fundamental inconsistency.
Under s9 of the GRA (which precedes the EA) a person obtaining a GRC becomes for all practical purposes the legal sex of their acquired gender. That's what it says.
Does it matter that two pieces of statute are at odds with each other? I'd have thought it does.
Watch this space - not my posts, I mean debate around the legal point of the GRA and "gender transition". Also the new practical guidance from the EHRC in the light of the SC ruling. I think this issue has a way to run yet.
As an aside I'm wondering how our peer countries handle the trans question. Are we unusual in making such a drama out of it?
I have stayed away from the interminable bathroom debates, but I do wonder if Rachel reeves is now allowed to pee in the Chancellor's private urinal, or not?
I have stayed away from the interminable bathroom debates, but I do wonder if Rachel reeves is now allowed to pee in the Chancellor's private urinal, or not?
She'd miss her target by some distance.
I dunno, the Treasury's functionaries are very good at taking the piss.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
Exactly. Absurd and uninterpretable. As we saw from our lawmakers.
They should have set fire to them all.
I once again ask my earlier question which went unanswered correctly (you blamed Starmer).
Which halfwit Prime Minister wrote these "absurd and uninterpretable" laws?
I did answer it I said they are all ****ing idiots.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That is everything to do with knowing the law. Everything.
The trouble with this, and @TSE's response (laws were different) is that in so doing it accepts the premise that these laws were perfectly sensible, changed according to circumstance, and all that needed to happen was for people to understand them when they changed.
These were laws which penalised women having coffee together on a park bench, or told you who you could have in your own home at any one time, or that you couldn't go to visit your sick grandmother.
The issue I have with it all is not the content at one time or another, it is the wholesale and egregious violation of our civil liberties.
Not to defend every detail of those laws (I agree they were too micro in places, and also ambiguous), but if we all go to our graves with that being the worst violation of our civil liberties, I think we'll have done ok.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That is everything to do with knowing the law. Everything.
The trouble with this, and @TSE's response (laws were different) is that in so doing it accepts the premise that these laws were perfectly sensible, changed according to circumstance, and all that needed to happen was for people to understand them when they changed.
These were laws which penalised women having coffee together on a park bench, or told you who you could have in your own home at any one time, or that you couldn't go to visit your sick grandmother.
The issue I have with it all is not the content at one time or another, it is the wholesale and egregious violation of our civil liberties.
Not to defend every detail of those laws (I agree they were too micro in places, and also ambiguous), but if we all go to our graves with that being the worst violation of our civil liberties, I think we'll have done ok.
Weird. Mandating who you can ask into your home and all the rest. What on earth other civil liberties do you have in mind that might be worse.
I have stayed away from the interminable bathroom debates, but I do wonder if Rachel reeves is now allowed to pee in the Chancellor's private urinal, or not?
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
Exactly. Absurd and uninterpretable. As we saw from our lawmakers.
They should have set fire to them all.
I once again ask my earlier question which went unanswered correctly (you blamed Starmer).
Which halfwit Prime Minister wrote these "absurd and uninterpretable" laws?
I did answer it I said they are all ****ing idiots.
Your answer was wrong. The answer was Boris Johnson.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
Exactly. Absurd and uninterpretable. As we saw from our lawmakers.
They should have set fire to them all.
I once again ask my earlier question which went unanswered correctly (you blamed Starmer).
Which halfwit Prime Minister wrote these "absurd and uninterpretable" laws?
I did answer it I said they are all ****ing idiots.
Your answer was wrong. The answer was Boris Johnson.
Show your workings. Must try harder.
I think it's going a bit far to call Massive Johnson a half wit.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That is everything to do with knowing the law. Everything.
The trouble with this, and @TSE's response (laws were different) is that in so doing it accepts the premise that these laws were perfectly sensible, changed according to circumstance, and all that needed to happen was for people to understand them when they changed.
These were laws which penalised women having coffee together on a park bench, or told you who you could have in your own home at any one time, or that you couldn't go to visit your sick grandmother.
The issue I have with it all is not the content at one time or another, it is the wholesale and egregious violation of our civil liberties.
I say again, Starmer is a lawyer not a politician.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
Exactly. Absurd and uninterpretable. As we saw from our lawmakers.
They should have set fire to them all.
I once again ask my earlier question which went unanswered correctly (you blamed Starmer).
Which halfwit Prime Minister wrote these "absurd and uninterpretable" laws?
I did answer it I said they are all ****ing idiots.
Your answer was wrong. The answer was Boris Johnson.
Show your workings. Must try harder.
Very interesting that you don't consider Boris Johnson to be a ****ing idiot.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That is everything to do with knowing the law. Everything.
The trouble with this, and @TSE's response (laws were different) is that in so doing it accepts the premise that these laws were perfectly sensible, changed according to circumstance, and all that needed to happen was for people to understand them when they changed.
These were laws which penalised women having coffee together on a park bench, or told you who you could have in your own home at any one time, or that you couldn't go to visit your sick grandmother.
The issue I have with it all is not the content at one time or another, it is the wholesale and egregious violation of our civil liberties.
Not to defend every detail of those laws (I agree they were too micro in places, and also ambiguous), but if we all go to our graves with that being the worst violation of our civil liberties, I think we'll have done ok.
Weird. Mandating who you can ask into your home and all the rest. What on earth other civil liberties do you have in mind that might be worse.
Hardly 'police state', though, was it. Not in the grand scheme of things. And there was a terrifying public health crisis on.
Fine to rail against it, then and now, and take lessons about panic and overreach etc, but let's also keep a bit of perspective eh?
That is to say, the Pope can invite up to 120 to any College meeting, but in the absence of a Pope any qualifying cardinal has the right to attend and vote.
Some may choose not to, of course.
Just have 15 rounds of musical chairs.
Or 134 rounds to simplify and enliven the whole pope-choosing process?
Televised...
You just know there'd be some dirty elbow and tripping action...
I have stayed away from the interminable bathroom debates, but I do wonder if Rachel reeves is now allowed to pee in the Chancellor's private urinal, or not?
She'd miss her target by some distance.
I dunno, the Treasury's functionaries are very good at taking the piss.
The treasury’s green book would be better used as toilet paper than its supposed purpose
I have stayed away from the interminable bathroom debates, but I do wonder if Rachel reeves is now allowed to pee in the Chancellor's private urinal, or not?
She'd miss her target by some distance.
The target was set by a previous administration...
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That is everything to do with knowing the law. Everything.
The trouble with this, and @TSE's response (laws were different) is that in so doing it accepts the premise that these laws were perfectly sensible, changed according to circumstance, and all that needed to happen was for people to understand them when they changed.
These were laws which penalised women having coffee together on a park bench, or told you who you could have in your own home at any one time, or that you couldn't go to visit your sick grandmother.
The issue I have with it all is not the content at one time or another, it is the wholesale and egregious violation of our civil liberties.
Not to defend every detail of those laws (I agree they were too micro in places, and also ambiguous), but if we all go to our graves with that being the worst violation of our civil liberties, I think we'll have done ok.
Weird. Mandating who you can ask into your home and all the rest. What on earth other civil liberties do you have in mind that might be worse.
Hardly 'police state', though, was it. Not in the grand scheme of things. And there was a terrifying public health crisis on.
Fine to rail against it, then and now, and take lessons about panic and overreach etc, but let's also keep a bit of perspective eh?
Obviously you were spending too much time in your charming Hampstead house to notice what was going on in those less well off areas where it all mattered, because it for all the world the UK did resemble a police state.
Think about what the government said you could or could not do and the penalties for doing what they said you couldn't do. Leave the house, see family, go for a walk, etc. Just because they were also the halcyon days of you (one) being able to tweet about trans issues without being arrested doesn't detract from the huge violation of civil liberties that those laws represented.
I might, in previous times, have had sympathy with the idea that Britain has wrongly traded away the rights of “fisher people” for the mere promise of European defence spend.
However, in the 9 years since the Brexit vote, British governments of whatever stripe have shown no interest in fishing and as noted up thread, the industry has largely been sold to overseas interests.
The UK is not really interested in place-building (Grimsby etc) or the idea that a small industry, ie fishing, might be important precisely because it is the only viable industry in such places. In fact, the terms of that argument seem to be repugnant to Treasury etc.
Therefore, let Grimsby continue rotting on social security, and let’s hope British manufacturers can make the most of European opportunities.
That is to say, the Pope can invite up to 120 to any College meeting, but in the absence of a Pope any qualifying cardinal has the right to attend and vote.
Some may choose not to, of course.
Just have 15 rounds of musical chairs.
Or 134 rounds to simplify and enliven the whole pope-choosing process?
Televised...
You just know there'd be some dirty elbow and tripping action...
NEW: Maggie Chapman MSP has doubled down on her remarks about the Supreme Court being “bigoted and hateful” - no resignation from the equalities committee in Holyrood and no apologies. More to come @LBC@LBCNewsScot@LBCNews
Mind you, she doesn’t know what her chromosomes are, so perhaps knowing the responsibilities of MSPs is beyond her too….
She clearly didn’t read the judgement properly and her comments are ridiculous. All the court did was clarify the law . I have huge respect for our Supreme Court which is free from political meddling .
NEW: Maggie Chapman MSP has doubled down on her remarks about the Supreme Court being “bigoted and hateful” - no resignation from the equalities committee in Holyrood and no apologies. More to come @LBC@LBCNewsScot@LBCNews
Mind you, she doesn’t know what her chromosomes are, so perhaps knowing the responsibilities of MSPs is beyond her too….
She clearly didn’t read the judgement properly and her comments are ridiculous. All the court did was clarify the law . I have huge respect for our Supreme Court which is free from political meddling .
Perfectly understandable. If you think a transwoman is a woman then transwomen should fall under sex discrimination measures in the Equality Act.
And whatsherface evidently thinks that transwomen are women and should be under the law.
At least the SC clarifies and answer's Matt Walsh's infamous question - a woman is not a transwoman as far as the equalities act is concerned.
Which makes sense only in so far as in certain areas, the "hot topics" (sportsnprisns), it would make sense for there to be a sensible compromise (imo).
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That is everything to do with knowing the law. Everything.
The trouble with this, and @TSE's response (laws were different) is that in so doing it accepts the premise that these laws were perfectly sensible, changed according to circumstance, and all that needed to happen was for people to understand them when they changed.
These were laws which penalised women having coffee together on a park bench, or told you who you could have in your own home at any one time, or that you couldn't go to visit your sick grandmother.
The issue I have with it all is not the content at one time or another, it is the wholesale and egregious violation of our civil liberties.
Not to defend every detail of those laws (I agree they were too micro in places, and also ambiguous), but if we all go to our graves with that being the worst violation of our civil liberties, I think we'll have done ok.
Weird. Mandating who you can ask into your home and all the rest. What on earth other civil liberties do you have in mind that might be worse.
Hardly 'police state', though, was it. Not in the grand scheme of things. And there was a terrifying public health crisis on.
Fine to rail against it, then and now, and take lessons about panic and overreach etc, but let's also keep a bit of perspective eh?
Obviously you were spending too much time in your charming Hampstead house to notice what was going on in those less well off areas where it all mattered, because it for all the world the UK did resemble a police state.
Think about what the government said you could or could not do and the penalties for doing what they said you couldn't do. Leave the house, see family, go for a walk, etc. Just because they were also the halcyon days of you (one) being able to tweet about trans issues without being arrested doesn't detract from the huge violation of civil liberties that those laws represented.
As I said, fine to be outraged by it. We need people who bring that pov. It guards against complacency. We also need perspective, which is what I'm bringing. Between us we have it covered. The country is in safe hands.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That's how we can tell you're not a lawyer.
That's how we can tell that the laws were absurd and uninterpretable.
The laws were different in 2020 and 2021.
Exactly. Absurd and uninterpretable. As we saw from our lawmakers.
They should have set fire to them all.
I once again ask my earlier question which went unanswered correctly (you blamed Starmer).
Which halfwit Prime Minister wrote these "absurd and uninterpretable" laws?
I did answer it I said they are all ****ing idiots.
Your answer was wrong. The answer was Boris Johnson.
Show your workings. Must try harder.
Very interesting that you don't consider Boris Johnson to be a ****ing idiot.
You just couldn't bring yourself to name check Big Dog as the uniquely guilty party. Tut, tut.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That is everything to do with knowing the law. Everything.
The trouble with this, and @TSE's response (laws were different) is that in so doing it accepts the premise that these laws were perfectly sensible, changed according to circumstance, and all that needed to happen was for people to understand them when they changed.
These were laws which penalised women having coffee together on a park bench, or told you who you could have in your own home at any one time, or that you couldn't go to visit your sick grandmother.
The issue I have with it all is not the content at one time or another, it is the wholesale and egregious violation of our civil liberties.
Not to defend every detail of those laws (I agree they were too micro in places, and also ambiguous), but if we all go to our graves with that being the worst violation of our civil liberties, I think we'll have done ok.
Weird. Mandating who you can ask into your home and all the rest. What on earth other civil liberties do you have in mind that might be worse.
Hardly 'police state', though, was it. Not in the grand scheme of things. And there was a terrifying public health crisis on.
Fine to rail against it, then and now, and take lessons about panic and overreach etc, but let's also keep a bit of perspective eh?
Obviously you were spending too much time in your charming Hampstead house to notice what was going on in those less well off areas where it all mattered, because it for all the world the UK did resemble a police state.
Think about what the government said you could or could not do and the penalties for doing what they said you couldn't do. Leave the house, see family, go for a walk, etc. Just because they were also the halcyon days of you (one) being able to tweet about trans issues without being arrested doesn't detract from the huge violation of civil liberties that those laws represented.
As I said, fine to be outraged by it. We need people who bring that pov. It guards against complacency. We also need perspective, which is what I'm bringing. Between us we have it covered. The country is in safe hands.
Good point - I was just pointing out that your complacency can lead to dangerous times.
That is to say, the Pope can invite up to 120 to any College meeting, but in the absence of a Pope any qualifying cardinal has the right to attend and vote.
Some may choose not to, of course.
Just have 15 rounds of musical chairs.
Or 134 rounds to simplify and enliven the whole pope-choosing process?
Televised...
You just know there'd be some dirty elbow and tripping action...
It's a Papal Knockout?
I’d guess Stuart Hall wouldn’t get the gig. If he was still with us.
NEW: Maggie Chapman MSP has doubled down on her remarks about the Supreme Court being “bigoted and hateful” - no resignation from the equalities committee in Holyrood and no apologies. More to come @LBC@LBCNewsScot@LBCNews
Mind you, she doesn’t know what her chromosomes are, so perhaps knowing the responsibilities of MSPs is beyond her too….
She clearly didn’t read the judgement properly and her comments are ridiculous. All the court did was clarify the law . I have huge respect for our Supreme Court which is free from political meddling .
That is to say, the Pope can invite up to 120 to any College meeting, but in the absence of a Pope any qualifying cardinal has the right to attend and vote.
Some may choose not to, of course.
Just have 15 rounds of musical chairs.
Or 134 rounds to simplify and enliven the whole pope-choosing process?
Televised...
You just know there'd be some dirty elbow and tripping action...
It's a Papal Knockout?
I’d guess Stuart Hall wouldn’t get the gig. If he was still with us.
So where, legally, can trans men go to toilet? The disabled loo?
They can use a mixed sex toilet or the women’s toilet. It’s not complicated.
Or the men's toilet.
It's not illegal to use the toilet of the opposite sex. I've done it myself out of convenience if no women are around. The clarification of sex in the Equalities Act hasn't changed that.
What has been clarified is that a trans person cannot use the Equalities Act to legally insist that they can use the toilet of their chosen gender but opposite sex. It's a theoretical point of no practical relevance.
But it could have been relevant in the case of hospital wards and prisons where a trans person could have used the Equalities Act to gain admittance to the hospital ward or prison of their gender but not their sex if that was being resisted by the relevant authority. That can't happen now. But quite a rare occurrence I would think.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Really? So all the trans activists are now content with the law's ruling. Have I got that right?
No way. What makes you think that?
"The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'."
Me opining that doesn't mean trans activists are happy with the SC ruling. My reach is not quite that impressive.
Does it matter if people are happy with a court's ruling?
Or do they need to respect the rule of law even if unhappy?
Surprised you need my guidance on this. Being unhappy with a law isn't generally a valid reason to flout it. Where on earth would we be if it were? Anarchy Alley, that's where.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Really? So all the trans activists are now content with the law's ruling. Have I got that right?
No way. What makes you think that?
"The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'."
Me opining that doesn't mean trans activists are happy with the SC ruling. My reach is not quite that impressive.
Does it matter if people are happy with a court's ruling?
Or do they need to respect the rule of law even if unhappy?
Surprised you need my guidance on this. Being unhappy with a law isn't generally a valid reason to flout it. Where on earth would we be if it were? Anarchy Alley, that's where.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
He really is the living embodiment of an irritating Harry Enfield character.
Starmer is a lawyer first and politician last if at all. For Keir Starmer KC, if the law says X is Y then that is the last word on the matter, whether it be freebies or trans. His legal mind served him well in ousting Boris because he knew the rules and Boris didn't.
Both had beers with work colleagues during covidand only one was had up for it. That's surely nothing to do with knowing the law.
That is everything to do with knowing the law. Everything.
The trouble with this, and @TSE's response (laws were different) is that in so doing it accepts the premise that these laws were perfectly sensible, changed according to circumstance, and all that needed to happen was for people to understand them when they changed.
These were laws which penalised women having coffee together on a park bench, or told you who you could have in your own home at any one time, or that you couldn't go to visit your sick grandmother.
The issue I have with it all is not the content at one time or another, it is the wholesale and egregious violation of our civil liberties.
Not to defend every detail of those laws (I agree they were too micro in places, and also ambiguous), but if we all go to our graves with that being the worst violation of our civil liberties, I think we'll have done ok.
Weird. Mandating who you can ask into your home and all the rest. What on earth other civil liberties do you have in mind that might be worse.
Hardly 'police state', though, was it. Not in the grand scheme of things. And there was a terrifying public health crisis on.
Fine to rail against it, then and now, and take lessons about panic and overreach etc, but let's also keep a bit of perspective eh?
Obviously you were spending too much time in your charming Hampstead house to notice what was going on in those less well off areas where it all mattered, because it for all the world the UK did resemble a police state.
Think about what the government said you could or could not do and the penalties for doing what they said you couldn't do. Leave the house, see family, go for a walk, etc. Just because they were also the halcyon days of you (one) being able to tweet about trans issues without being arrested doesn't detract from the huge violation of civil liberties that those laws represented.
As I said, fine to be outraged by it. We need people who bring that pov. It guards against complacency. We also need perspective, which is what I'm bringing. Between us we have it covered. The country is in safe hands.
Good point - I was just pointing out that your complacency can lead to dangerous times.
As can your lack of perspective. But the combination of me and you works. It's the sweet spot. Synergy. Creative tension. I'm Paul to your Ring ... to your John.
So where, legally, can trans men go to toilet? The disabled loo?
They can use a mixed sex toilet or the women’s toilet. It’s not complicated.
Or the men's toilet.
It's not illegal to use the toilet of the opposite sex. I've done it myself out of convenience if no women are around. The clarification of sex in the Equalities Act hasn't changed that.
What has been clarified is that a trans person cannot use the Equalities Act to legally insist that they can use the toilet of their chosen gender but opposite sex. It's a theoretical point of no practical relevance.
But it could have been relevant in the case of hospital wards and prisons where a trans person could have used the Equalities Act to gain admittance to the hospital ward or prison of their gender but not their sex if that was being resisted by the relevant authority. That can't happen now. But quite a rare occurrence I would think.
It really isn't a big deal legally.
IANAL But I believe putting a sign on the door saying "Ladies" is sexual discrimination, which is only lawful if you are taking advantage of one of the exemptions of the equality act. You would not be allowed to hang a sign "Whites only" on the door.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Really? So all the trans activists are now content with the law's ruling. Have I got that right?
No way. What makes you think that?
"The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'."
Me opining that doesn't mean trans activists are happy with the SC ruling. My reach is not quite that impressive.
Does it matter if people are happy with a court's ruling?
Or do they need to respect the rule of law even if unhappy?
Surprised you need my guidance on this. Being unhappy with a law isn't generally a valid reason to flout it. Where on earth would we be if it were? Anarchy Alley, that's where.
So where, legally, can trans men go to toilet? The disabled loo?
They can use a mixed sex toilet or the women’s toilet. It’s not complicated.
Or the men's toilet.
It's not illegal to use the toilet of the opposite sex. I've done it myself out of convenience if no women are around. The clarification of sex in the Equalities Act hasn't changed that.
What has been clarified is that a trans person cannot use the Equalities Act to legally insist that they can use the toilet of their chosen gender but opposite sex. It's a theoretical point of no practical relevance.
But it could have been relevant in the case of hospital wards and prisons where a trans person could have used the Equalities Act to gain admittance to the hospital ward or prison of their gender but not their sex if that was being resisted by the relevant authority. That can't happen now. But quite a rare occurrence I would think.
It really isn't a big deal legally.
IANAL But I believe putting a sign on the door saying "Ladies" is sexual discrimination, which is only lawful if you are taking advantage of one of the exemptions of the equality act. You would not be allowed to hang a sign "Whites only" on the door.
Putting "Ladies" on the door is not unlawful and never was for the reasons you give. Ignoring it is not unlawful either. But it is impolite if you are obviously a man.
Well done Starmer, fishing is worth feck all, we need to focus on the big issues, I will never forgive Boris Johnson for prioritising fish over financial services when it came to the Brexit deal.
Starmer close to EU arms deal — at the expense of fishermen
British firms will be able to bid for the new €150 billion EU defence fund after the UK makes concessions on fishing quotas
Sir Keir Starmer is close to striking a major trade deal with the EU that would allow British arms companies to sell billions of pounds of weapons to European allies.
British firms will be able to bid for the new €150 billion EU defence fund as part of Starmer’s reset with the bloc after the UK made significant concessions to Brussels on fishing rights.
The prime minister will host an EU-UK summit on May 19 in London as he seeks to ease trade barriers with Brussels.
NEW: Maggie Chapman MSP has doubled down on her remarks about the Supreme Court being “bigoted and hateful” - no resignation from the equalities committee in Holyrood and no apologies. More to come @LBC@LBCNewsScot@LBCNews
Mind you, she doesn’t know what her chromosomes are, so perhaps knowing the responsibilities of MSPs is beyond her too….
She clearly didn’t read the judgement properly and her comments are ridiculous. All the court did was clarify the law . I have huge respect for our Supreme Court which is free from political meddling .
So where, legally, can trans men go to toilet? The disabled loo?
They can use a mixed sex toilet or the women’s toilet. It’s not complicated.
Or the men's toilet.
It's not illegal to use the toilet of the opposite sex. I've done it myself out of convenience if no women are around. The clarification of sex in the Equalities Act hasn't changed that.
What has been clarified is that a trans person cannot use the Equalities Act to legally insist that they can use the toilet of their chosen gender but opposite sex. It's a theoretical point of no practical relevance.
But it could have been relevant in the case of hospital wards and prisons where a trans person could have used the Equalities Act to gain admittance to the hospital ward or prison of their gender but not their sex if that was being resisted by the relevant authority. That can't happen now. But quite a rare occurrence I would think.
It really isn't a big deal legally.
IANAL But I believe putting a sign on the door saying "Ladies" is sexual discrimination, which is only lawful if you are taking advantage of one of the exemptions of the equality act. You would not be allowed to hang a sign "Whites only" on the door.
Putting "Ladies" on the door is not unlawful and never was for the reasons you give. Ignoring it is not unlawful either. But it is impolite if you are obviously a man.
But it is only lawful if you are doing it to e.g. give privacy to biological women. So if you deliberately fail to act according to the equality act (eg explicitly allowing trans women to use the loo labelled 'ladies') you would not be covered by the exemption, thus would be illegally discriminating as much as if you put a sign "whites only" on the door.
That is to say, the Pope can invite up to 120 to any College meeting, but in the absence of a Pope any qualifying cardinal has the right to attend and vote.
Some may choose not to, of course.
Just have 15 rounds of musical chairs.
Or 134 rounds to simplify and enliven the whole pope-choosing process?
Televised...
You just know there'd be some dirty elbow and tripping action...
It's a Papal Knockout?
I’d guess Stuart Hall wouldn’t get the gig. If he was still with us.
He’s still alive.
I was going to say ‘ow’s about that then’ but that’s a different BBC wrong un
That is to say, the Pope can invite up to 120 to any College meeting, but in the absence of a Pope any qualifying cardinal has the right to attend and vote.
Some may choose not to, of course.
Just have 15 rounds of musical chairs.
Or 134 rounds to simplify and enliven the whole pope-choosing process?
Televised...
You just know there'd be some dirty elbow and tripping action...
It's a Papal Knockout?
I’d guess Stuart Hall wouldn’t get the gig. If he was still with us.
He’s still alive.
I was going to say ‘how’s about that then’ but that’s a different BBC wrong un
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Really? So all the trans activists are now content with the law's ruling. Have I got that right?
No way. What makes you think that?
"The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'."
Me opining that doesn't mean trans activists are happy with the SC ruling. My reach is not quite that impressive.
Does it matter if people are happy with a court's ruling?
Or do they need to respect the rule of law even if unhappy?
Surprised you need my guidance on this. Being unhappy with a law isn't generally a valid reason to flout it. Where on earth would we be if it were? Anarchy Alley, that's where.
So where, legally, can trans men go to toilet? The disabled loo?
They can use a mixed sex toilet or the women’s toilet. It’s not complicated.
Or the men's toilet.
It's not illegal to use the toilet of the opposite sex. I've done it myself out of convenience if no women are around. The clarification of sex in the Equalities Act hasn't changed that.
What has been clarified is that a trans person cannot use the Equalities Act to legally insist that they can use the toilet of their chosen gender but opposite sex. It's a theoretical point of no practical relevance.
But it could have been relevant in the case of hospital wards and prisons where a trans person could have used the Equalities Act to gain admittance to the hospital ward or prison of their gender but not their sex if that was being resisted by the relevant authority. That can't happen now. But quite a rare occurrence I would think.
It really isn't a big deal legally.
IANAL But I believe putting a sign on the door saying "Ladies" is sexual discrimination, which is only lawful if you are taking advantage of one of the exemptions of the equality act. You would not be allowed to hang a sign "Whites only" on the door.
Putting "Ladies" on the door is not unlawful and never was for the reasons you give. Ignoring it is not unlawful either. But it is impolite if you are obviously a man.
There's a Benny Hill sketch where he wears thick spectacles and mis-reads the "Ladies" as "Laddies" instead, with obvious consequences
Usually US economic pain is cushioned by falling bond yields and a strengthening dollar, which mean lower interest rates and more spending power for consumers.
This time we’re seeing the opposite, meaning the pain will be amplified.
Basically what normally happens is investors think “Stocks are too risky now, so let’s shift into US bonds and the dollar, which are a safer bet because America is a stable and well-run country with a good handle on its deficit and inflation.”
That is to say, the Pope can invite up to 120 to any College meeting, but in the absence of a Pope any qualifying cardinal has the right to attend and vote.
Some may choose not to, of course.
Just have 15 rounds of musical chairs.
Or 134 rounds to simplify and enliven the whole pope-choosing process?
Televised...
You just know there'd be some dirty elbow and tripping action...
It's a Papal Knockout?
I’d guess Stuart Hall wouldn’t get the gig. If he was still with us.
He’s still alive.
I was going to say ‘how’s about that then’ but that’s a different BBC wrong un
So where, legally, can trans men go to toilet? The disabled loo?
They can use a mixed sex toilet or the women’s toilet. It’s not complicated.
Or the men's toilet.
It's not illegal to use the toilet of the opposite sex. I've done it myself out of convenience if no women are around. The clarification of sex in the Equalities Act hasn't changed that.
What has been clarified is that a trans person cannot use the Equalities Act to legally insist that they can use the toilet of their chosen gender but opposite sex. It's a theoretical point of no practical relevance.
But it could have been relevant in the case of hospital wards and prisons where a trans person could have used the Equalities Act to gain admittance to the hospital ward or prison of their gender but not their sex if that was being resisted by the relevant authority. That can't happen now. But quite a rare occurrence I would think.
It really isn't a big deal legally.
IANAL But I believe putting a sign on the door saying "Ladies" is sexual discrimination, which is only lawful if you are taking advantage of one of the exemptions of the equality act. You would not be allowed to hang a sign "Whites only" on the door.
Putting "Ladies" on the door is not unlawful and never was for the reasons you give. Ignoring it is not unlawful either. But it is impolite if you are obviously a man.
But it is only lawful if you are doing it to e.g. give privacy to biological women. So if you deliberately fail to act according to the equality act (eg explicitly allowing trans women to use the loo labelled 'ladies') you would not be covered by the exemption, thus would be illegally discriminating as much as if you put a sign "whites only" on the door.
I think you are incorrect. That is not the law as I understand it.
So where, legally, can trans men go to toilet? The disabled loo?
They can use a mixed sex toilet or the women’s toilet. It’s not complicated.
Or the men's toilet.
It's not illegal to use the toilet of the opposite sex. I've done it myself out of convenience if no women are around. The clarification of sex in the Equalities Act hasn't changed that.
What has been clarified is that a trans person cannot use the Equalities Act to legally insist that they can use the toilet of their chosen gender but opposite sex. It's a theoretical point of no practical relevance.
But it could have been relevant in the case of hospital wards and prisons where a trans person could have used the Equalities Act to gain admittance to the hospital ward or prison of their gender but not their sex if that was being resisted by the relevant authority. That can't happen now. But quite a rare occurrence I would think.
It really isn't a big deal legally.
IANAL But I believe putting a sign on the door saying "Ladies" is sexual discrimination, which is only lawful if you are taking advantage of one of the exemptions of the equality act. You would not be allowed to hang a sign "Whites only" on the door.
Putting "Ladies" on the door is not unlawful and never was for the reasons you give. Ignoring it is not unlawful either. But it is impolite if you are obviously a man.
But it is only lawful if you are doing it to e.g. give privacy to biological women. So if you deliberately fail to act according to the equality act (eg explicitly allowing trans women to use the loo labelled 'ladies') you would not be covered by the exemption, thus would be illegally discriminating as much as if you put a sign "whites only" on the door.
I think you are incorrect. That is not the law as I understand it.
So where, legally, can trans men go to toilet? The disabled loo?
Yes. Why not?
I thought that. What would be the problem?
Disabled people get quite upset when able bodied people use the only disabled loo in the vicinity. I discovered this on a Calmac ferry to Harris when I nipped into one to complete the somewhat complicated task of removing my motorbike waterproofs. Came out to a woman in a wheelchair and her companion staring daggers at me. The companion said she was going to make a complaint as I scuttled off (nothing came of it).
Usually US economic pain is cushioned by falling bond yields and a strengthening dollar, which mean lower interest rates and more spending power for consumers.
This time we’re seeing the opposite, meaning the pain will be amplified.
Basically what normally happens is investors think “Stocks are too risky now, so let’s shift into US bonds and the dollar, which are a safer bet because America is a stable and well-run country with a good handle on its deficit and inflation.”
The rise in treasury yields since Trump’s tariffs were announced leads to an increase in US debt interest payments that is larger than all the DOGE savings.
NEW: Maggie Chapman MSP has doubled down on her remarks about the Supreme Court being “bigoted and hateful” - no resignation from the equalities committee in Holyrood and no apologies. More to come @LBC@LBCNewsScot@LBCNews
Mind you, she doesn’t know what her chromosomes are, so perhaps knowing the responsibilities of MSPs is beyond her too….
She clearly didn’t read the judgement properly and her comments are ridiculous. All the court did was clarify the law . I have huge respect for our Supreme Court which is free from political meddling .
Methinks somewhat difficult to imagine the Greens and Alba together in a pro-Indy coalition with the SNP after next May.
I’m finding it mildly difficult to imagine Ash as an MSP for Edinburgh East after next May. She has a better chance if she puts herself on the Alba list, but no guarantee.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Well, I think if Starmer can really make sense of the Supreme Court judgment and is really in favour of clarity he should repeal the Gender Recognition Act forthwith. Because the judgment makes a nonsense of it.
But I can't believe Starmer will do anything so straightforward.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Well, I think if Starmer can really make sense of the Supreme Court judgment and is really in favour of clarity he should repeal the Gender Recognition Act forthwith. Because the judgment makes a nonsense of it.
But I can't believe Starmer will do anything so straightforward.
As a modern politician, Starmer hopes that he can be friends with all 23 sides on this issue. And go “It’s the law” to any complaints.
As a lawyer, a ruling that one law invalidates another, without having to do anything else, is an awesome opportunity. To do nothing, yet reap rewards.
He is praying harder than all the cardinals in Rome that no one notices that he has the power to change the law.
So where, legally, can trans men go to toilet? The disabled loo?
Yes. Why not?
I thought that. What would be the problem?
Disabled people get quite upset when able bodied people use the only disabled loo in the vicinity. I discovered this on a Calmac ferry to Harris when I nipped into one to complete the somewhat complicated task of removing my motorbike waterproofs. Came out to a woman in a wheelchair and her companion staring daggers at me. The companion said she was going to make a complaint as I scuttled off (nothing came of it).
Pretend you are deaf. I did. Worked a treat
They would be given an 'in transition' id card to display if necessary.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Well, I think if Starmer can really make sense of the Supreme Court judgment and is really in favour of clarity he should repeal the Gender Recognition Act forthwith. Because the judgment makes a nonsense of it.
But I can't believe Starmer will do anything so straightforward.
As a modern politician, Starmer hopes that he can be friends with all 23 sides on this issue. And go “It’s the law” to any complaints.
As a lawyer, a ruling that one law invalidates another, without having to do anything else, is an awesome opportunity. To do nothing, yet reap rewards.
He is praying harder than all the cardinals in Rome that no one notices that he has the power to change the law.
He's helped by the fact that none of his significant political opponents seems to have any interest in pointing that out to him. Including the so-called Liberal Democrats.
So where, legally, can trans men go to toilet? The disabled loo?
Yes. Why not?
I thought that. What would be the problem?
Disabled people get quite upset when able bodied people use the only disabled loo in the vicinity. I discovered this on a Calmac ferry to Harris when I nipped into one to complete the somewhat complicated task of removing my motorbike waterproofs. Came out to a woman in a wheelchair and her companion staring daggers at me. The companion said she was going to make a complaint as I scuttled off (nothing came of it).
Pretend you are deaf. I did. Worked a treat
They would be given an 'in transition' id card to display if necessary.
I suspect you are not someone who has recently tried to find a public toilet that it's possible to use, let alone one not designated "men" or "women".
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Well, I think if Starmer can really make sense of the Supreme Court judgment and is really in favour of clarity he should repeal the Gender Recognition Act forthwith. Because the judgment makes a nonsense of it.
But I can't believe Starmer will do anything so straightforward.
As a modern politician, Starmer hopes that he can be friends with all 23 sides on this issue. And go “It’s the law” to any complaints.
As a lawyer, a ruling that one law invalidates another, without having to do anything else, is an awesome opportunity. To do nothing, yet reap rewards.
He is praying harder than all the cardinals in Rome that no one notices that he has the power to change the law.
He's helped by the fact that none of his significant political opponents seems to have any interest in pointing that out to him. Including the so-called Liberal Democrats.
Why in the world wouldn’t they want to have a massive debate on this topic?
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Well, I think if Starmer can really make sense of the Supreme Court judgment and is really in favour of clarity he should repeal the Gender Recognition Act forthwith. Because the judgment makes a nonsense of it.
But I can't believe Starmer will do anything so straightforward.
As a modern politician, Starmer hopes that he can be friends with all 23 sides on this issue. And go “It’s the law” to any complaints.
As a lawyer, a ruling that one law invalidates another, without having to do anything else, is an awesome opportunity. To do nothing, yet reap rewards.
He is praying harder than all the cardinals in Rome that no one notices that he has the power to change the law.
He's helped by the fact that none of his significant political opponents seems to have any interest in pointing that out to him. Including the so-called Liberal Democrats.
Why in the world wouldn’t they want to have a massive debate on this topic?
Perhaps the idea is just to wait for the ECHR to rule on it again. Then it won't be the fault of anyone who could suffer politically.
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Well, I think if Starmer can really make sense of the Supreme Court judgment and is really in favour of clarity he should repeal the Gender Recognition Act forthwith. Because the judgment makes a nonsense of it.
But I can't believe Starmer will do anything so straightforward.
Repealing a piece of legislation, or passing one, is not in the gift of any individual. Not even the Prime Minister. And even Parliament, with the best will in the world, could not repeal it "forthwith".
Well done Starmer, fishing is worth feck all, we need to focus on the big issues, I will never forgive Boris Johnson for prioritising fish over financial services when it came to the Brexit deal.
Starmer close to EU arms deal — at the expense of fishermen
British firms will be able to bid for the new €150 billion EU defence fund after the UK makes concessions on fishing quotas
Sir Keir Starmer is close to striking a major trade deal with the EU that would allow British arms companies to sell billions of pounds of weapons to European allies.
British firms will be able to bid for the new €150 billion EU defence fund as part of Starmer’s reset with the bloc after the UK made significant concessions to Brussels on fishing rights.
The prime minister will host an EU-UK summit on May 19 in London as he seeks to ease trade barriers with Brussels.
The Met initially told The Telegraph it would take no further action over the signs, saying that although it had received complaints about some placards, “to date the images and signs are from historic events, did not take place in London, or do not constitute a criminal offence”.
However, the force changed its position after being presented with evidence from this newspaper that threatening signs had been displayed in central London on Saturday
'A woman is an adult female - the court has made that clear'
@Keir_Starmer is asked whether he thinks a trans woman is a woman, after a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last week
It's the right answer. The law is more important than what he or anybody else 'thinks'. Also the alternative, a straight yes or no, leads to trouble.
Answer yes - "Oh. So you're undermining the Supreme Court and the Equality Act 2010 then?"
Answer no - "Oh. In which case when will you be repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004?"
In general we shouldn't conflate nuance with slipperiness, or simplicity with clarity. It can be the case but often (as here) it is not.
Well, I think if Starmer can really make sense of the Supreme Court judgment and is really in favour of clarity he should repeal the Gender Recognition Act forthwith. Because the judgment makes a nonsense of it.
But I can't believe Starmer will do anything so straightforward.
As a modern politician, Starmer hopes that he can be friends with all 23 sides on this issue. And go “It’s the law” to any complaints.
As a lawyer, a ruling that one law invalidates another, without having to do anything else, is an awesome opportunity. To do nothing, yet reap rewards.
He is praying harder than all the cardinals in Rome that no one notices that he has the power to change the law.
He's helped by the fact that none of his significant political opponents seems to have any interest in pointing that out to him. Including the so-called Liberal Democrats.
Why in the world wouldn’t they want to have a massive debate on this topic?
Perhaps the idea is just to wait for the ECHR to rule on it again. Then it won't be the fault of anyone who could suffer politically.
The ECHR do not out rank the supreme court....their judgement is pish and wind
Comments
Which lawyers know only too well.
The top performer is gold, followed by German government debt.
In last place, it’s big US technology stocks, followed by oil, for whom April 2 was more like Demolition Day."
Guardian business blog
What's the betting Trump's mates all have gold positions?
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/society/20250422/dont-wait-until-we-are-all-gone-former-sex-slaves-demand-justice-now
...With most victims now deceased and those responsible no longer alive, Kim stressed that financial compensation holds significant symbolic value — not merely as material support, but as a formal acknowledgment of Japan’s wartime responsibility.
"For this reason, compensation remain a central part of resolving the comfort women issue," she said. "It’s not just about the money. It’s about Japan recognizing its wrongdoing through a meaningful and concrete gesture."
Kim also argued that the issue should not be viewed solely as a bilateral dispute between Korea and Japan, but as a universal human rights concern rooted in the systemic abuse of women during times of war.
"This isn’t just a Korean issue or a matter of diplomacy between two countries," she said. "It’s a global issue. Sexual violence against women continues to occur in conflicts around the world even today."
She added that Japan’s response to the issue has the potential to send a powerful global message — much like Germany’s acknowledgment of its past human rights violations — by setting an international precedent for accountability and historical reckoning.
This government should introduce zonal pricing for energy.
@LBC @LBCNewsScot @LBCNews
https://x.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1914647614051545506?
Mind you, she doesn’t know what her chromosomes are, so perhaps knowing the responsibilities of MSPs is beyond her too….
They should have set fire to them all.
These were laws which penalised women having coffee together on a park bench, or told you who you could have in your own home at any one time, or that you couldn't go to visit your sick grandmother.
The issue I have with it all is not the content at one time or another, it is the wholesale and egregious violation of our civil liberties.
Which halfwit Prime Minister wrote these "absurd and uninterpretable" laws?
Under s9 of the GRA (which precedes the EA) a person obtaining a GRC becomes for all practical purposes the legal sex of their acquired gender. That's what it says.
Does it matter that two pieces of statute are at odds with each other? I'd have thought it does.
Watch this space - not my posts, I mean debate around the legal point of the GRA and "gender transition". Also the new practical guidance from the EHRC in the light of the SC ruling. I think this issue has a way to run yet.
As an aside I'm wondering how our peer countries handle the trans question. Are we unusual in making such a drama out of it?
It's a funny old game Saint.
Show your workings. Must try harder.
At best he is a 12.5% wit.
Fine to rail against it, then and now, and take lessons about panic and overreach etc, but let's also keep a bit of perspective eh?
Think about what the government said you could or could not do and the penalties for doing what they said you couldn't do. Leave the house, see family, go for a walk, etc. Just because they were also the halcyon days of you (one) being able to tweet about trans issues without being arrested doesn't detract from the huge violation of civil liberties that those laws represented.
However, in the 9 years since the Brexit vote, British governments of whatever stripe have shown no interest in fishing and as noted up thread, the industry has largely been sold to overseas interests.
The UK is not really interested in place-building (Grimsby etc) or the idea that a small industry, ie fishing, might be important precisely because it is the only viable industry in such places. In fact, the terms of that argument seem to be repugnant to Treasury etc.
Therefore, let Grimsby continue rotting on social security, and let’s hope British manufacturers can make the most of European opportunities.
You are a bit all over the place today.
And whatsherface evidently thinks that transwomen are women and should be under the law.
At least the SC clarifies and answer's Matt Walsh's infamous question - a woman is not a transwoman as far as the equalities act is concerned.
Which makes sense only in so far as in certain areas, the "hot topics" (sportsnprisns), it would make sense for there to be a sensible compromise (imo).
Maggie Chapman, again, doesn't seem to think so.
It's not illegal to use the toilet of the opposite sex. I've done it myself out of convenience if no women are around.
The clarification of sex in the Equalities Act hasn't changed that.
What has been clarified is that a trans person cannot use the Equalities Act to legally insist that they can use the toilet of their chosen gender but opposite sex. It's a theoretical point of no practical relevance.
But it could have been relevant in the case of hospital wards and prisons where a trans person could have used the Equalities Act to gain admittance to the hospital ward or prison of their gender but not their sex if that was being resisted by the relevant authority. That can't happen now. But quite a rare occurrence I would think.
It really isn't a big deal legally.
Or do they need to respect the rule of law even if unhappy?
Thought it was clear enough but obviously not. My bad.
https://x.com/afpost/status/1914630467719930222
Ignoring it is not unlawful either. But it is impolite if you are obviously a man.
Been done before. What could possibly go wrong?
Usually US economic pain is cushioned by falling bond yields and a strengthening dollar, which mean lower interest rates and more spending power for consumers.
This time we’re seeing the opposite, meaning the pain will be amplified.
Basically what normally happens is investors think “Stocks are too risky now, so let’s shift into US bonds and the dollar, which are a safer bet because America is a stable and well-run country with a good handle on its deficit and inflation.”
This time? Not so much.
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1914674245801513028?
https://bsky.app/profile/jburnmurdoch.ft.com/post/3lnfslq5i2c22
But I can't believe Starmer will do anything so straightforward.
But please read into it whatever you think you should.
NEW THREAD
As a lawyer, a ruling that one law invalidates another, without having to do anything else, is an awesome opportunity. To do nothing, yet reap rewards.
He is praying harder than all the cardinals in Rome that no one notices that he has the power to change the law.
The Met initially told The Telegraph it would take no further action over the signs, saying that although it had received complaints about some placards, “to date the images and signs are from historic events, did not take place in London, or do not constitute a criminal offence”.
However, the force changed its position after being presented with evidence from this newspaper that threatening signs had been displayed in central London on Saturday
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/22/trans-activists-death-threat-placards-reviewed-by-police/
From the same police force who claimed but Jihad has multiple meanings when shown video.