I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.
And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.
The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.
The people who put themselves for that task of running the country wouldn't get the levers of power of a FTSE 250 company. Politicians are not managers. Companies that get run by politicians usually crash and burn.
But also top managers who go into politics tend to do badly. They're different skills, after all. Archie Norman got nowhere for the Conservatives. Ditto Lord Young. Our current PM is experienced in running a large organisation (albeit public sector) and that experience doesn't seem to be helping him much.
Besides, why would anyone with that much ability who isn't a holy fool or a swivel-eyed ideologue enter politics these days? I'm not thinking so much about the money as the sense that everyone else is out to humiliate you on a daily basis?
This is why I think the criticism of Reeves as not having the economics or finance credentials to run the Treasury slightly odd. 1) - she is actually well qualified, particularly compared to her predecessors 2) Being CofE is about being a good politician more than anything.
I don't have a particular aversion to PPE grads and career SPADs running the country tbh. I think we could do with more former council leaders though.
On topic, some unqualified and random thoughts on the trans issue:-
The Supreme Court judgment is well-written but not intellectually coherent. Biological sex counts except when it doesn't, appears to be its guiding principle.
Why panic that the government might be planning to change the law? It suggests that following the law comes second to freezing the law, which is fine and even welcome as a political opinion but that is what it is.
GRCs handed out like confetti and self-id are the real problems. If post-op trans men and post-op trans women were regarded as "real" men and women, and pre-op ones were not, that would have made things so much clearer and fairer. (And yes, there'd be a small grey area in those waiting for treatment.)
As an aside, it worries me that disabled facilities are under threat by both sides using them as de facto gender-neutral facilities for the able-bodied.
» show previous quotes QT audiences are like election hustings. The local great and good from political parties, local ngos and councils attend en masse.
Went to hustings in 2019 in a constituency that overwhelmingly voted brexit, the Tory mp (who didn’t vote to leave) got booed when he insisted that it was important that the vote be respected. The audience was hostile to everything he said. By the measure of the hustings you would think he was going to lose his seat. He won with an 8,000 majority.
______
I have been watching BBC QuestionTime since I became in engaged with politics nearly 40 years ago, a rule of thumb, I have always enjoyed watching and guessing the the tribal activists who were either engaged enough to turn up in the audience and who managed to get to ask a question or got a response as a member of the audience as a result. It has always amused me when their opponents were quick to rush onto social media to out them as a tribal member of a particular party as if it was a crime for a political anorak from a political party to be so engaged they took part in the longest running political TV debate show on TV!
Who else would be bothered enough to engage and appear on BBC QuestionTime?! When ever there is a particular issue making the news, you can be sure that the next week there will be plenty vocal advocates for that issue in the audience. Where ever BBC Question TIme is, its never ever a really balanced audience of the views across the UK on the night.
A funny story, BBC Scotland were doing a Scottish leadership debate at Aberdeen University, now son No1 and son No3 who were Scottish Conservative voters at the time happened to be home when it was advertised and I said go for it you will standout and you will get picked, and they did! They had a great night, they were laughing because even the the Labour supporting ladies behind them raved about Ruth Davidson's performance. And to add to that at the end of the debate a lady who was a Scottish Libdem ran up to her and said you were great, and I say that as a SLibdem who cannot vote vote for you! But my favourite moment was son No3 sending me a message with a picture of son No1 with Ruth Davidson after the debate, and saying thanks Mum for pushing us to apply and go to this debate, we had a brilliant night!
I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.
And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.
The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.
It isn't illegal to seek asylum, nor to enter the country on a small boat to do so.
But "asylum" as a concept has been broken, courtesy of the organised boatloads of queue-bargers. Queue-barging is inimical to the British way of doing things. We have alway been a generous nation to those in genuine need. That has been tested - and quite possibly broken - by those who have no case other than they want to to make more money than they can at home..
It's a powerful image, for sure. British people don't like queue jumpers. But there isn't actually an asylum queue to jump, is there?
There are many places to apply for asylum in the trek across Africa/Asia --> Europe. Why pay snakeheads £10k to get to Britain? Because we all know they don't have a valid asylum claim.
I think it's because we are the lost chance saloon after you've been rejected elsewhere in Europe//
I'll gladly join others and congratulate Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
I don't disagree Stodge - the stats are pretty clear that underlying, widespread issues like child poverty are far bigger contributors to overall misery in the UK than small boats or indeed the trans issue.
But those hard statistics don't reflect the emotional and symbolic power of these issues. In the north of Scotland, poverty has an ongoing and devastating impact on people. Yet the reaction of my friends to the the rape of a 17-year old in Elgin by an asylum seeker would suggest that this is far, far more important to people - notwithstanding the widespead sexual abuse that happens at the hands of people from Scotland. This particular assault of a vulnerable girl is a direct consequence of UK Government's approach to immigration and Moray Council's housing of asylum seekers.
A challenge for people like me, who live in spreadsheets and models, is to find a way to measure this. An economist would use revealed preference to do so, and would likely find a value in the tens of billions.
Prince Andrew, sorry, Andrew MW, is another instance. Air Miles Andy's taste for subsidised holidays and bungs was well-known for decades, yet it is only when he was linked to underage sex that the public was outraged (and let's not get into technical arguments about whether Virginia was underage or even if they had sex at all, because it is perception that matters here).
ETA this is one area where the legal establishment is on a sticky wicket. Of course police should stop rioters and arsonists but the government should take more care not be seen as protecting child rapists and murderers.
Couldn't he describe himself as Capt. Mountbatten-Windsor RN (Retd)?
» show previous quotes QT audiences are like election hustings. The local great and good from political parties, local ngos and councils attend en masse.
Went to hustings in 2019 in a constituency that overwhelmingly voted brexit, the Tory mp (who didn’t vote to leave) got booed when he insisted that it was important that the vote be respected. The audience was hostile to everything he said. By the measure of the hustings you would think he was going to lose his seat. He won with an 8,000 majority.
______
I have been watching BBC QuestionTime since I became in engaged with politics nearly 40 years ago, a rule of thumb, I have always enjoyed watching and guessing the the tribal activists who were either engaged enough to turn up in the audience and who managed to get to ask a question or got a response as a member of the audience as a result. It has always amused me when their opponents were quick to rush onto social media to out them as a tribal member of a particular party as if it was a crime for a political anorak from a political party to be so engaged they took part in the longest running political TV debate show on TV!
Who else would be bothered enough to engage and appear on BBC QuestionTime?! When ever there is a particular issue making the news, you can be sure that the next week there will be plenty vocal advocates for that issue in the audience. Where ever BBC Question TIme is, its never ever a really balanced audience of the views across the UK on the night.
A funny story, BBC Scotland were doing a Scottish leadership debate at Aberdeen University, now son No1 and son No3 who were Scottish Conservative voters at the time happened to be home when it was advertised and I said go for it you will standout and you will get picked, and they did! They had a great night, they were laughing because even the the Labour supporting ladies behind them raved about Ruth Davidson's performance. And to add to that at the end of the debate a lady who was a Scottish Libdem ran up to her and said you were great, and I say that as a SLibdem who cannot vote vote for you! But my favourite moment was son No3 sending me a message with a picture of son No1 with Ruth Davidson after the debate, and saying thanks Mum for pushing us to apply and go to this debate, we had a brilliant night!
Whatever happened to Ruth Davidson? At one point she was never off the airwaves (though I believe she has joined the vast swirling limbo of podcasting).
» show previous quotes QT audiences are like election hustings. The local great and good from political parties, local ngos and councils attend en masse.
Went to hustings in 2019 in a constituency that overwhelmingly voted brexit, the Tory mp (who didn’t vote to leave) got booed when he insisted that it was important that the vote be respected. The audience was hostile to everything he said. By the measure of the hustings you would think he was going to lose his seat. He won with an 8,000 majority.
______
I have been watching BBC QuestionTime since I became in engaged with politics nearly 40 years ago, a rule of thumb, I have always enjoyed watching and guessing the the tribal activists who were either engaged enough to turn up in the audience and who managed to get to ask a question or got a response as a member of the audience as a result. It has always amused me when their opponents were quick to rush onto social media to out them as a tribal member of a particular party as if it was a crime for a political anorak from a political party to be so engaged they took part in the longest running political TV debate show on TV!
Who else would be bothered enough to engage and appear on BBC QuestionTime?! When ever there is a particular issue making the news, you can be sure that the next week there will be plenty vocal advocates for that issue in the audience. Where ever BBC Question TIme is, its never ever a really balanced audience of the views across the UK on the night.
A funny story, BBC Scotland were doing a Scottish leadership debate at Aberdeen University, now son No1 and son No3 who were Scottish Conservative voters at the time happened to be home when it was advertised and I said go for it you will standout and you will get picked, and they did! They had a great night, they were laughing because even the the Labour supporting ladies behind them raved about Ruth Davidson's performance. And to add to that at the end of the debate a lady who was a Scottish Libdem ran up to her and said you were great, and I say that as a SLibdem who cannot vote vote for you! But my favourite moment was son No3 sending me a message with a picture of son No1 with Ruth Davidson after the debate, and saying thanks Mum for pushing us to apply and go to this debate, we had a brilliant night!
Whatever happened to Ruth Davidson? At one point she was never off the airwaves (though I believe she has joined the vast swirling limbo of podcasting).
She's on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast with Harriet Harman and Someone Rigby. I don't listen to it, but it's always advertised during ad breaks when DS9 is on.
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
I graduated 40 years ago when there were over three million registered as unemployed and I couldn't even get into teacher training which was seen as the last resort (sorry, @ydoethur ).
I did my time queuing at the job centre with all the others who couldn't find work. Eventually, and much against my better judgement (but out of financial necessity), I worked in a bookies (which I had through my student holidays) for a year or so and hated it. Marking the board on odd afternoons was a bit of a laugh but as your main employment (apart from the money), it was very different and not pleasant.
As an aside, it would be much worse now given the long hours.
Working in a bookie 40 years ago would be great fun compared to today.
Today you’re basically babysitting the machines on which the lowest in society are losing their rent money, and dealing with a bunch of idiots waving their phones showing better odds then you can give them. All for minimum wage, and with a fair chance of getting robbed for the contents of the safe.
Yes, it was good fun when I was "out front" marking the board. I never thought about the shop getting robbed - I didn't have access to the safe or the keys or anything obviously.
We had the old boys doing their 112x1p reverse forecast doubles on the eight race dog cards and when I worked the shops around Soho, the market traders (who knew) would come in on a Saturday morning and bet big on the Hackney dogs. The biggest (in terms of cash) punter I saw always came in with two strikingly beautiful women and I was told he was in the porn business - he once gave the shop manager £100 as a bonus after a big win.
Paul Raymond, for the big tipper? Slightly more incognito than Peter Stringfellow.
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
I graduated 40 years ago when there were over three million registered as unemployed and I couldn't even get into teacher training which was seen as the last resort (sorry, @ydoethur ).
I did my time queuing at the job centre with all the others who couldn't find work. Eventually, and much against my better judgement (but out of financial necessity), I worked in a bookies (which I had through my student holidays) for a year or so and hated it. Marking the board on odd afternoons was a bit of a laugh but as your main employment (apart from the money), it was very different and not pleasant.
As an aside, it would be much worse now given the long hours.
Working in a bookie 40 years ago would be great fun compared to today.
Today you’re basically babysitting the machines on which the lowest in society are losing their rent money, and dealing with a bunch of idiots waving their phones showing better odds then you can give them. All for minimum wage, and with a fair chance of getting robbed for the contents of the safe.
Yes, it was good fun when I was "out front" marking the board. I never thought about the shop getting robbed - I didn't have access to the safe or the keys or anything obviously.
We had the old boys doing their 112x1p reverse forecast doubles on the eight race dog cards and when I worked the shops around Soho, the market traders (who knew) would come in on a Saturday morning and bet big on the Hackney dogs. The biggest (in terms of cash) punter I saw always came in with two strikingly beautiful women and I was told he was in the porn business - he once gave the shop manager £100 as a bonus after a big win.
Paul Raymond, for the big tipper? Slightly more incognito than Peter Stringfellow.
» show previous quotes QT audiences are like election hustings. The local great and good from political parties, local ngos and councils attend en masse.
Went to hustings in 2019 in a constituency that overwhelmingly voted brexit, the Tory mp (who didn’t vote to leave) got booed when he insisted that it was important that the vote be respected. The audience was hostile to everything he said. By the measure of the hustings you would think he was going to lose his seat. He won with an 8,000 majority.
______
I have been watching BBC QuestionTime since I became in engaged with politics nearly 40 years ago, a rule of thumb, I have always enjoyed watching and guessing the the tribal activists who were either engaged enough to turn up in the audience and who managed to get to ask a question or got a response as a member of the audience as a result. It has always amused me when their opponents were quick to rush onto social media to out them as a tribal member of a particular party as if it was a crime for a political anorak from a political party to be so engaged they took part in the longest running political TV debate show on TV!
Who else would be bothered enough to engage and appear on BBC QuestionTime?! When ever there is a particular issue making the news, you can be sure that the next week there will be plenty vocal advocates for that issue in the audience. Where ever BBC Question TIme is, its never ever a really balanced audience of the views across the UK on the night.
A funny story, BBC Scotland were doing a Scottish leadership debate at Aberdeen University, now son No1 and son No3 who were Scottish Conservative voters at the time happened to be home when it was advertised and I said go for it you will standout and you will get picked, and they did! They had a great night, they were laughing because even the the Labour supporting ladies behind them raved about Ruth Davidson's performance. And to add to that at the end of the debate a lady who was a Scottish Libdem ran up to her and said you were great, and I say that as a SLibdem who cannot vote vote for you! But my favourite moment was son No3 sending me a message with a picture of son No1 with Ruth Davidson after the debate, and saying thanks Mum for pushing us to apply and go to this debate, we had a brilliant night!
Whatever happened to Ruth Davidson? At one point she was never off the airwaves (though I believe she has joined the vast swirling limbo of podcasting).
I love the fact that she really got under the skin of you Nats, so much so she saw the Scottish Conservatives become the main opposition in 2016, and more importantly she won that Edinburgh constituency seat as the the leader. You may try to cynically dismiss her today, but she was a force to be reckoned with, and she really found your emperoress with no clothes Nicola Sturgeon wanting...
I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.
And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.
The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.
It isn't illegal to seek asylum, nor to enter the country on a small boat to do so.
But "asylum" as a concept has been broken, courtesy of the organised boatloads of queue-bargers. Queue-barging is inimical to the British way of doing things. We have alway been a generous nation to those in genuine need. That has been tested - and quite possibly broken - by those who have no case other than they want to to make more money than they can at home..
It's a powerful image, for sure. British people don't like queue jumpers. But there isn't actually an asylum queue to jump, is there?
There are many places to apply for asylum in the trek across Africa/Asia --> Europe. Why pay snakeheads £10k to get to Britain? Because we all know they don't have a valid asylum claim.
Some do, some don't. Many/most.... I'll accept not all...... speak English. After a fashion, anyway. That's one problem resulting from having, not long ago, an empire on which the sun never set!
I'll gladly join others and congratulate Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
I don't disagree Stodge - the stats are pretty clear that underlying, widespread issues like child poverty are far bigger contributors to overall misery in the UK than small boats or indeed the trans issue.
But those hard statistics don't reflect the emotional and symbolic power of these issues. In the north of Scotland, poverty has an ongoing and devastating impact on people. Yet the reaction of my friends to the the rape of a 17-year old in Elgin by an asylum seeker would suggest that this is far, far more important to people - notwithstanding the widespead sexual abuse that happens at the hands of people from Scotland. This particular assault of a vulnerable girl is a direct consequence of UK Government's approach to immigration and Moray Council's housing of asylum seekers.
A challenge for people like me, who live in spreadsheets and models, is to find a way to measure this. An economist would use revealed preference to do so, and would likely find a value in the tens of billions.
Prince Andrew, sorry, Andrew MW, is another instance. Air Miles Andy's taste for subsidised holidays and bungs was well-known for decades, yet it is only when he was linked to underage sex that the public was outraged (and let's not get into technical arguments about whether Virginia was underage or even if they had sex at all, because it is perception that matters here).
ETA this is one area where the legal establishment is on a sticky wicket. Of course police should stop rioters and arsonists but the government should take more care not be seen as protecting child rapists and murderers.
Couldn't he describe himself as Capt. Mountbatten-Windsor RN (Retd)?
I'll gladly join others and congratulate Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
I don't disagree Stodge - the stats are pretty clear that underlying, widespread issues like child poverty are far bigger contributors to overall misery in the UK than small boats or indeed the trans issue.
But those hard statistics don't reflect the emotional and symbolic power of these issues. In the north of Scotland, poverty has an ongoing and devastating impact on people. Yet the reaction of my friends to the the rape of a 17-year old in Elgin by an asylum seeker would suggest that this is far, far more important to people - notwithstanding the widespead sexual abuse that happens at the hands of people from Scotland. This particular assault of a vulnerable girl is a direct consequence of UK Government's approach to immigration and Moray Council's housing of asylum seekers.
A challenge for people like me, who live in spreadsheets and models, is to find a way to measure this. An economist would use revealed preference to do so, and would likely find a value in the tens of billions.
Prince Andrew, sorry, Andrew MW, is another instance. Air Miles Andy's taste for subsidised holidays and bungs was well-known for decades, yet it is only when he was linked to underage sex that the public was outraged (and let's not get into technical arguments about whether Virginia was underage or even if they had sex at all, because it is perception that matters here).
ETA this is one area where the legal establishment is on a sticky wicket. Of course police should stop rioters and arsonists but the government should take more care not be seen as protecting child rapists and murderers.
Couldn't he describe himself as Capt. Mountbatten-Windsor RN (Retd)?
I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.
And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.
The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.
It isn't illegal to seek asylum, nor to enter the country on a small boat to do so.
But "asylum" as a concept has been broken, courtesy of the organised boatloads of queue-bargers. Queue-barging is inimical to the British way of doing things. We have alway been a generous nation to those in genuine need. That has been tested - and quite possibly broken - by those who have no case other than they want to to make more money than they can at home..
It's a powerful image, for sure. British people don't like queue jumpers. But there isn't actually an asylum queue to jump, is there?
There are many places to apply for asylum in the trek across Africa/Asia --> Europe. Why pay snakeheads £10k to get to Britain? Because we all know they don't have a valid asylum claim.
99% of the worlds asylum seekers do go somewhere else.
I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.
And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.
The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.
The people who put themselves for that task of running the country wouldn't get the levers of power of a FTSE 250 company. Politicians are not managers. Companies that get run by politicians usually crash and burn.
But also top managers who go into politics tend to do badly. They're different skills, after all. Archie Norman got nowhere for the Conservatives. Ditto Lord Young. Our current PM is experienced in running a large organisation (albeit public sector) and that experience doesn't seem to be helping him much.
Besides, why would anyone with that much ability who isn't a holy fool or a swivel-eyed ideologue enter politics these days? I'm not thinking so much about the money as the sense that everyone else is out to humiliate you on a daily basis?
This is why I think the criticism of Reeves as not having the economics or finance credentials to run the Treasury slightly odd. 1) - she is actually well qualified, particularly compared to her predecessors 2) Being CofE is about being a good politician more than anything.
I don't have a particular aversion to PPE grads and career SPADs running the country tbh. I think we could do with more former council leaders though.
Not council leaders as such, but John Major was Chairman of Housing in Lambeth and Theresa May was Chairman of Education in Merton. Liz Truss was a councillor in Greenwich, which is perhaps a counterpoint. But yes- running a little bit of politics effectively (real politics, with tradeoffs to manage) ought to be a better way into running a lot.
On the other hand, there was Eric Pickles, whose tenure as SoS for Communites and Local Government continues to cause all sorts of problems.
» show previous quotes QT audiences are like election hustings. The local great and good from political parties, local ngos and councils attend en masse.
Went to hustings in 2019 in a constituency that overwhelmingly voted brexit, the Tory mp (who didn’t vote to leave) got booed when he insisted that it was important that the vote be respected. The audience was hostile to everything he said. By the measure of the hustings you would think he was going to lose his seat. He won with an 8,000 majority.
______
I have been watching BBC QuestionTime since I became in engaged with politics nearly 40 years ago, a rule of thumb, I have always enjoyed watching and guessing the the tribal activists who were either engaged enough to turn up in the audience and who managed to get to ask a question or got a response as a member of the audience as a result. It has always amused me when their opponents were quick to rush onto social media to out them as a tribal member of a particular party as if it was a crime for a political anorak from a political party to be so engaged they took part in the longest running political TV debate show on TV!
Who else would be bothered enough to engage and appear on BBC QuestionTime?! When ever there is a particular issue making the news, you can be sure that the next week there will be plenty vocal advocates for that issue in the audience. Where ever BBC Question TIme is, its never ever a really balanced audience of the views across the UK on the night.
A funny story, BBC Scotland were doing a Scottish leadership debate at Aberdeen University, now son No1 and son No3 who were Scottish Conservative voters at the time happened to be home when it was advertised and I said go for it you will standout and you will get picked, and they did! They had a great night, they were laughing because even the the Labour supporting ladies behind them raved about Ruth Davidson's performance. And to add to that at the end of the debate a lady who was a Scottish Libdem ran up to her and said you were great, and I say that as a SLibdem who cannot vote vote for you! But my favourite moment was son No3 sending me a message with a picture of son No1 with Ruth Davidson after the debate, and saying thanks Mum for pushing us to apply and go to this debate, we had a brilliant night!
Whatever happened to Ruth Davidson? At one point she was never off the airwaves (though I believe she has joined the vast swirling limbo of podcasting).
I love the fact that she really got under the skin of you Nats, so much so she saw the Scottish Conservatives become the main opposition in 2016, and more importantly she won that Edinburgh constituency seat as the the leader. You may try to cynically dismiss her today, but she was a force to be reckoned with, and she really found your emperoress with no clothes Nicola Sturgeon wanting...
Can we expect Ruth to be making the case for Scottish Conservatism next May or has even she given up?
Re Sturgeon, not the first time SCons are out of step with public opinion.
I'll gladly join others and congratulate Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
I don't disagree Stodge - the stats are pretty clear that underlying, widespread issues like child poverty are far bigger contributors to overall misery in the UK than small boats or indeed the trans issue.
But those hard statistics don't reflect the emotional and symbolic power of these issues. In the north of Scotland, poverty has an ongoing and devastating impact on people. Yet the reaction of my friends to the the rape of a 17-year old in Elgin by an asylum seeker would suggest that this is far, far more important to people - notwithstanding the widespead sexual abuse that happens at the hands of people from Scotland. This particular assault of a vulnerable girl is a direct consequence of UK Government's approach to immigration and Moray Council's housing of asylum seekers.
A challenge for people like me, who live in spreadsheets and models, is to find a way to measure this. An economist would use revealed preference to do so, and would likely find a value in the tens of billions.
Prince Andrew, sorry, Andrew MW, is another instance. Air Miles Andy's taste for subsidised holidays and bungs was well-known for decades, yet it is only when he was linked to underage sex that the public was outraged (and let's not get into technical arguments about whether Virginia was underage or even if they had sex at all, because it is perception that matters here).
ETA this is one area where the legal establishment is on a sticky wicket. Of course police should stop rioters and arsonists but the government should take more care not be seen as protecting child rapists and murderers.
Couldn't he describe himself as Capt. Mountbatten-Windsor RN (Retd)?
As he was a Seaman his retired rank was Commander, like James Bond.
He is also an Honorary VICE Admiral. Probably best not to use that title under the circumstances.
Thanks for header @Cyclefree - it’s the classic case of politicians not liking an outcome but not having the guts to change the law to how they think it should be.
Understandably.
"Vote for us so that we can change the law we brought in to remove rights for women and gay people. Oh and that Farage - he's a fascist."
I dunno. Doesn't strike me as an attractive proposition, frankly.
Anyway my article has now, I've been told, sent to the Head of the EHRC.
Meanwhile I am having delicious porridge and cream for my late breakfast in Ulverston's Market Hall cafe. I may buy some buttons later and Wonderweb tape, plant more bulbs, attend drinks at the Village Hall and then resume cat-sitting duties for Daughter.
6. No-one's complained. Yeah right - a woman is going to complain to a man who is physically stronger than he and who has breached her boundaries. No - she won't. She will get the hell out of there because she knows how to risk assess even if the authorities have abandoned this concept.
This has a parallel with - of all things - pavement parking. A comment I have heard a number of times is that disabled people "have not complained".
Damn right they haven't. Most who have tried will have had at some time responses varying from "f*ck off I'll do what I want" to "I left you space" to "get a life" to "do you want a bunch of fives?".
And since they can't run away easily and are vulnerable, they give up out of fear.
The points I make apply equally to gays and lesbians, particularly the latter, because the SC judgment clarified - to the extent this ever needed clarifying - that sexual orientation is based on sex not certificates. It said clearly in paragraph 206 that the concept of sexual orientation towards members of a particular sex would be rendered meaningless otherwise.
Anyway here are my answers to the Frequently Argued (and often stupid) Points raised when this topic is discussed.
1. It is cis men who are a threat to women. Not TW. They are one and the same: both members of the male sex.
2. No TW has ever assaulted a woman in a toilet. Untrue. Lots of examples - here and in other countries. See Katie Dolatowski, for instance.
3. TW are not a threat to women. Judging by the latest evidence from the MoJ a far greater proportion of TW prisoners are sexual offenders than male prisoners or female ones.
4. The SC judgment bans trans people from loos, changing rooms, sport etc. No it doesn't. No-one is banned. They are simply asked to use the facilities for their sex or unisex ones. In sport they are required to compete in their sex category to ensure that female sport is fair.
5. Trans people have been using women's loos for ages. This is the equivalent of saying that people have been committing murder or shoplifting for ages. It doesn't make it lawful.
6. No-one's complained. Yeah right - a woman is going to complain to a man who is physically stronger than he and who has breached her boundaries. No - she won't. She will get the hell out of there because she knows how to risk assess even if the authorities have abandoned this concept.
7. Trans people are being denied rights. No they aren't. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else. The right to be in a space, service or association for the opposite sex is not a human right of any kind. Demands are not rights.
8. Not everywhere has a unisex space. Indeed not. Perhaps the last decade might have been better used to campaign for such spaces.
9. Men might not like having TW in with them. They should learn to be inclusive and kind.
10. Men might attack TW. Yes - male violence against violence against TW is a problem. It is not one which women are obliged to solve.
11. Everyone has a gender neutral toilet at home. What's your problem? Good-oh: make your address public, opening hours, parking restrictions, cleaning regime etc., so anyone in the vicinity can use it.
12. Having men in women's sport is no different to having an exceptional sportsman or woman. Someone does not understand the difference between categories separated on the basis of a relevant characteristic (age / sex / weight, for instance) and an exceptional member within that category.
1 - That's what you and many others think. Many other people (including cis women) think differently. 2 - And that's obviously terrible. Someone like that isn't going to care about the law are they though? 3 - Trans women suffer terrible abuse, and it's been getting much worse recently. Most of them are not sexual offenders. 4 - It bans people from the loos they present as. There are trans people who you would never know were trans. How would you feel seeing a trans man who looks exactly the same as a cis man in the loo with you? 5 - A trans woman going to the loos and someone getting murdered are not remotely comparable. Some TW have been using the women's loos for decades. To be told "Actually no you can't do that anymore it's the law" might stop some trans people, it isn't going to stop actual criminals who don't care about the law. 6 - Don't know where you get the idea that people are saying that no one's complained. Hell, it's known that actual cis women are getting accused of being men in toilets. 7 - Private services (like a lesbian support group for example) absolutely should have the right to who their members are IMHO and if they want to exclude trans women then so be it. 8 - Many places, especially in a country like the UK with older buildings don't have the space to put in a separate toilet. 9 - Yes they should, but sadly that's not going to happen for a long time, if ever. 10 - I agree they aren't. Again, someone who wants to attack a women isn't going to care what the law says though. 11 - Never heard that argument either, and it's a stupid one (them not you).
12 - That's a separate issue and one where I would actually agree with you.
If a man wants to hang around in the ladies bogs I'd have thought it's a lot easier to pretend to be a trans man than to pretend to be a trans woman.
"ChatGPT, please generate three phrases that mean absolutely nothing."
I replied
"It's called StaLLMer"
Then I noticed the little Grok icon that says "Explain this post", and clicked
A side window opened up and told me
"This post is a pun on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's name, twisting it to "StaLLMer" to suggest stalling or inaction, in response to criticism of his vague policy phrases like "renewal over decline." It replies to conservative commentator Daniel Hannan's satirical jab at Starmer, where Hannan asks ChatGPT to generate meaningless slogans mirroring the PM's rhetoric. The low engagement (1 view, no interactions) indicates it's a niche, early-morning quip in a thread amplifying right-leaning mockery of Labour's leadership on November 1, 2025."
I replied
"The LLM in StaLLMer stands for Large Language Model. Are you familiar with such a thing?"
Grok told me all about LLMs
I said
"Do you understand the joke better now that I've pointed that out?"
Grok,
"Absolutely, now that you've pointed out the "LLM" in "StaLLMer" stands for Large Language Model, the joke clicks into place even more! The pun works on multiple levels, and your insight adds a delicious layer of tech-savvy humor.Here’s how I see it now:The Base Pun: "StaLLMer" is a play on Keir Starmer's name, with "stall" implying inaction or delay—likely a jab at perceived sluggishness in his leadership or Labour’s policy rollout, as hinted by the web results mentioning his unpopularity and internal party criticism in 2025. The LLM Twist: By embedding "LLM" (Large Language Model), Blanche Livermore cleverly ties it to the earlier post by Daniel Hannan, where he mocks Starmer’s vague slogans by asking ChatGPT (an LLM) to generate meaningless phrases. The joke suggests Starmer’s rhetoric might as well be AI-generated fluff—empty, polished words with no substance, a critique amplified by the context of LLMs sometimes producing hollow text. The Satirical Edge: It’s a double-edged swipe: at Starmer for stalling (politically or rhetorically) and at the rise of AI like me, implying his leadership could be outsourced to a language model with similar effect.
With this in mind, the humor feels sharper—it's not just a political dig but a tech-culture nod, blending Westminster woes with a wink at AI’s role in shaping modern discourse. The timing (12:03 PM GMT today, November 1, 2025) also fits a fresh, early-day quip in a thread already buzzing with conservative mockery. Does that align with how you see it, or is there another angle you’d like to explore?"
Anyway my article has now, I've been told, sent to the Head of the EHRC.
Meanwhile I am having delicious porridge and cream for my late breakfast in Ulverston's Market Hall cafe. I may buy some buttons later and Wonderweb tape, plant more bulbs, attend drinks at the Village Hall and then resume cat-sitting duties for Daughter.
A woman of many parts, me.
I’m trying to imagine the reaction of lawyers to the idea that Human Rights need to Processed through the Inquiry Industrial Complex to work out if they are “affordable”
Part of me wants to laugh - it feels like end state where even the law is stopped from working.
We’ve come a long way since the Law was a couple of books that the local Lord puzzled over in medieval times, haven’t we?
He’s a quarter of the way into this parliament. When is he actually going to do it rather than just talk about it.
I wonder whether he's one of the people who believe, deep down, that saying slogans enough times makes them happen?
If Labour hadn't come to government with no apparent plan, I'd have imagined SKS to be one of those who believe deep down that if you keep planning your project in minute enough detail, you'll never have to do any actual work to accomplish the objectives.
I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The small boats are a symbolic thing. They are symbolic of people breaking the rules and getting away with it. Impunity is becoming a theme of our times and, for that reason, it is important that the small boats are dealt with.
And, somehow, a government has to manage to address the more severe problems and the symbolic ones, at the same time. One of the weaknesses of British politics in this era of weak Cabinets and all-powerful Prime Ministers, is that it is harder for a government to effectively multi-task. The emasculation of local authorities in favour of Whitehall centralisation has a similar enervating effect.
The government of a country of nigh on 70 million is too big a job for one person.
It isn't illegal to seek asylum, nor to enter the country on a small boat to do so.
But "asylum" as a concept has been broken, courtesy of the organised boatloads of queue-bargers. Queue-barging is inimical to the British way of doing things. We have alway been a generous nation to those in genuine need. That has been tested - and quite possibly broken - by those who have no case other than they want to to make more money than they can at home..
My Grandmother had some trouble escaping Vienna to make it to Britain after the Anschluss, and I do not think that the general experience of Jewish refugees seeking to make their way to Britain would accord with the judgement that Britain has, "always been a generous nation to those in genuine need," for all that we laud those individuals who made an effort in the face of hostility and official obstructionism to do so.
My wife has a script ready for filming about the KIndertransport in 1938/9. The programme was supported, publicised, and encouraged by the British government, which waived the visa immigration requirements that were not within the ability of the British Jewish community to fulfil. Certainly there was examples of official obstruction, often down to personal antisemitism. But as a people, we have been there to help out those in need.
My understanding is that we were quite even-handed with POWs over the ages, who we might have had cause to despise. But once they were no longer a threat, they were treated with respect by most folks.
Was having a conversation with a local whose parents had a farm. She was a baby during the war and the farm had Italian POW's helping out. One day she was put in a pram in the garden and when her mother returned she was nowhere to be seen. The mother's panic was short lived when she heard laughter nearby. The Italians, all missing their own children, had picked the baby up and were feeding spaghetti to her.
How is this related to the thread? Perhaps it's because we are all human and treating people decently is a natural trait.
HobNobs over Bourbons Taupe over Mauve Chicken soup over Tomato soup Dressing to the left over Dressing to the right Double-breasted over Single-breasted Flares over Drainpipes Mods over Rockers
Unlocking the dribbling moron of everyone in every part of the UK.
HobNobs over Bourbons Taupe over Mauve Chicken soup over Tomato soup Dressing to the left over Dressing to the right Double-breasted over Single-breasted Flares over Drainpipes Mods over Rockers
Unlocking the dribbling moron of everyone in every part of the UK.
I'm sorry, but that set of policies is incoherent.
Thank you for the article, @Cyclefree. I haven't got time this weekend (work, work, work) to critique the article, but I can have a brief scan of the comments. So as follows:
PART 1 @Viewcode My thoughts on the SC ruling, which I am trying to work up into an article, are here:
PART 2 @ydoethur "That's exactly the way they are behaving anyway" - Well, yes
@Cyclefree "Judging by the latest evidence from the MoJ a far greater proportion of TW prisoners are sexual offenders than male prisoners or female ones." - I remind you of my Viewcode Rant that relative figures (proportions) are useless without absolute numbers and vice-versa
"No-one is banned. They are simply asked to use the facilities for their sex or unisex ones." Whilst technically true, this overlooks the Supreme Court decision that female-to-males should be banned from their birth sex toilets if they are too manly, a duty I think the SC made up out of thin air.
PART 3 @Sandpit "...Starmer is worried about offending a very small but vocal group of activists, who are generally of the left but have a reputation for quite extreme behaviour. They’re the sort of people who would follow him around to every event he attends, with every intention of disrupting it..." - This overlooks two things:
i) the surprisingly well-organised *non-violent* (letter-writing campaigns, mass meetings with MPs, etc) actions of trans people since the SC. These have been overlooked because the more shouty and/or violent ones have been foregrounded
ii) A report to Starmer about Labour bleeding support to the left. My headcanon says that Labour has lost about two or three percent of the vote due to this. Not a lot, but when you are at 16% in the polls...
PART 4 @DecrepiterJohnL "GRCs handed out like confetti". In the twenty years since their creation, only 8,000 have been issued. There are 68million people in the UK. That's one piece of confetti per 8,500 people. It's hardly Katie Price, now is it...
@LostPassword "Starmer has been characterised as a stickler for the law and for process. He waits for the process/courts to come to a judgement and then implements it" - I think that's a disadvantage, not an advantage, and if he thinks like that he should have stayed a lawyer. Parliament is supreme and tells the SC what the law is, not vice versa. If he agrees with the EHRC interpretation then it should go thru toot-suite (sic). If he doesn't, then he should move a Bill to force his own interpretation. Taking refuge in process just shows how bad he is at the job.
PART 4 @Taz "On this issue the Met and other forces are happy,to be used by TRA’s to enact petty vendettas against people who speak up against them and the govt happy to ignore the law" - if you are referring to the technique used to force the arrest of Graham Linehan and others, then that was using the law, not ignoring it. The technique was to contact the police and tell them that if they didn't implement the law then a judicial review would be sought. It may well have been petty (a value judgement) but it was not ignoring the law
The govt want to change the law to allow Plod to gun down ‘trans’
Ooh Shabana's gonna be pissed about this. She's gonna change protest laws again so police can just gun down the transes and the climate protestors and those who disapprove of genocide, isn't she?
The points I make apply equally to gays and lesbians, particularly the latter, because the SC judgment clarified - to the extent this ever needed clarifying - that sexual orientation is based on sex not certificates. It said clearly in paragraph 206 that the concept of sexual orientation towards members of a particular sex would be rendered meaningless otherwise.
Anyway here are my answers to the Frequently Argued (and often stupid) Points raised when this topic is discussed.
1. It is cis men who are a threat to women. Not TW. They are one and the same: both members of the male sex.
2. No TW has ever assaulted a woman in a toilet. Untrue. Lots of examples - here and in other countries. See Katie Dolatowski, for instance.
3. TW are not a threat to women. Judging by the latest evidence from the MoJ a far greater proportion of TW prisoners are sexual offenders than male prisoners or female ones.
4. The SC judgment bans trans people from loos, changing rooms, sport etc. No it doesn't. No-one is banned. They are simply asked to use the facilities for their sex or unisex ones. In sport they are required to compete in their sex category to ensure that female sport is fair.
5. Trans people have been using women's loos for ages. This is the equivalent of saying that people have been committing murder or shoplifting for ages. It doesn't make it lawful.
6. No-one's complained. Yeah right - a woman is going to complain to a man who is physically stronger than he and who has breached her boundaries. No - she won't. She will get the hell out of there because she knows how to risk assess even if the authorities have abandoned this concept.
7. Trans people are being denied rights. No they aren't. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else. The right to be in a space, service or association for the opposite sex is not a human right of any kind. Demands are not rights.
8. Not everywhere has a unisex space. Indeed not. Perhaps the last decade might have been better used to campaign for such spaces.
9. Men might not like having TW in with them. They should learn to be inclusive and kind.
10. Men might attack TW. Yes - male violence against violence against TW is a problem. It is not one which women are obliged to solve.
11. Everyone has a gender neutral toilet at home. What's your problem? Good-oh: make your address public, opening hours, parking restrictions, cleaning regime etc., so anyone in the vicinity can use it.
12. Having men in women's sport is no different to having an exceptional sportsman or woman. Someone does not understand the difference between categories separated on the basis of a relevant characteristic (age / sex / weight, for instance) and an exceptional member within that category.
I think there is a widespread misunderstanding of the SC judgement. As you say, there is no banning of trans from loos etc. But nor are they asked to use the facilities of their own sex. It is up to the supplier of the services or spaces to determine the access rules. The SC judgement simply means that a trans person cannot use the protected sex characteristic of the Equality Law to enforce access to a space or service reserved for the opposite sex.
In practice it is not a big deal. A trans woman who is outwardly indistinguishable from a biological woman will still be able to use women's loos.
I think there is a great deal of unnecessary heat on both sides of this issue. It's not a big deal. It just means that a "man in a frock", obviously a man, who claims to be female, cannot use the law to enforce access to women's spaces. Quite right too.
PART 3 @Sandpit "...Starmer is worried about offending a very small but vocal group of activists, who are generally of the left but have a reputation for quite extreme behaviour. They’re the sort of people who would follow him around to every event he attends, with every intention of disrupting it..." - This overlooks two things:
i) the surprisingly well-organised *non-violent* (letter-writing campaigns, mass meetings with MPs, etc) actions of trans people since the SC. These have been overlooked because the more shouty and/or violent ones have been foregrounded
ii) A report to Starmer about Labour bleeding support to the left. My headcanon says that Labour has lost about two or three percent of the vote due to this. Not a lot, but when you are at 16% in the polls...
Yes, Starmer’s problem is that he needs the support of the batshit crazy left, but they now have the Greens and Your Party to vote for. But, if he tries to win them back, by revenge socialism, overturning the SC ruling, and targeting Israel, he’ll lose swing voters.
I'll gladly join others and congratulate Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
I don't disagree Stodge - the stats are pretty clear that underlying, widespread issues like child poverty are far bigger contributors to overall misery in the UK than small boats or indeed the trans issue.
But those hard statistics don't reflect the emotional and symbolic power of these issues. In the north of Scotland, poverty has an ongoing and devastating impact on people. Yet the reaction of my friends to the the rape of a 17-year old in Elgin by an asylum seeker would suggest that this is far, far more important to people - notwithstanding the widespead sexual abuse that happens at the hands of people from Scotland. This particular assault of a vulnerable girl is a direct consequence of UK Government's approach to immigration and Moray Council's housing of asylum seekers.
A challenge for people like me, who live in spreadsheets and models, is to find a way to measure this. An economist would use revealed preference to do so, and would likely find a value in the tens of billions.
Prince Andrew, sorry, Andrew MW, is another instance. Air Miles Andy's taste for subsidised holidays and bungs was well-known for decades, yet it is only when he was linked to underage sex that the public was outraged (and let's not get into technical arguments about whether Virginia was underage or even if they had sex at all, because it is perception that matters here).
ETA this is one area where the legal establishment is on a sticky wicket. Of course police should stop rioters and arsonists but the government should take more care not be seen as protecting child rapists and murderers.
Couldn't he describe himself as Capt. Mountbatten-Windsor RN (Retd)?
As he was a Seaman his retired rank was Commander, like James Bond.
He is also an Honorary VICE Admiral. Probably best not to use that title under the circumstances.
A seaman? He used to fly budgies. Definitely amongst the roof rats. What am I missing?
PART 5 @AnneJGP "Do politicians not understand that ordinary people who are parents will do anything to protect their children from body-destroying ideologies? I have no children and I have the greatest sympathy for those with true body dysmorphia or other real problems. But personally I would rather be obliged to wear a burqa myself than have the children of my society ruined by this ideology" -
If that is the case then it should be imposed via the law, not via medics. Medicine prioritises the interests of the individual, law the interests of the collective. Genital surgery in the UK has always been illegal for those unde a certain age, I think 16, and can be extended to hormones and puberty blockers if Parliament desires.
I have since learnt that the legislation under which the government was seeking to require the EHRC to conduct a Regulatory Impact Assessment (sub-section 21ff of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 - since you ask) was repealed by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform Act 2023 - SS. 18(1) and 22(2).
Meanwhile women are gathering today to protest against the failure to enforce the judgment in London, Cardiff and Edinburgh. The 199 Days March. We'll see if the politicians manage to allow both to have their say without allowing the hecklers veto to prevent women protesting at all. Police Scotland, in particular have been bloody awful at this and the Met were no better back in April when the protests by those upset by the SC judgment led to criminal damage and the defacement of statues of famous suffragettes, with no charges ever brought.
PART 3 @Sandpit "...Starmer is worried about offending a very small but vocal group of activists, who are generally of the left but have a reputation for quite extreme behaviour. They’re the sort of people who would follow him around to every event he attends, with every intention of disrupting it..." - This overlooks two things:
i) the surprisingly well-organised *non-violent* (letter-writing campaigns, mass meetings with MPs, etc) actions of trans people since the SC. These have been overlooked because the more shouty and/or violent ones have been foregrounded
ii) A report to Starmer about Labour bleeding support to the left. My headcanon says that Labour has lost about two or three percent of the vote due to this. Not a lot, but when you are at 16% in the polls...
Yes, Starmer’s problem is that he needs the support of the batshit crazy left, but they now have the Greens and Your Party to vote for. But, if he tries to win them back, by revenge socialism, overturning the SC ruling, and targeting Israel, he’ll lose swing voters.
So now he essentially has the same problem the Conservatives too, but he's 4 years ahead of the clock.
What is needed are a few high profile prosecutions of organisations and, hopefully, of individuals, to show they cannot just ignore the law because they don't like it.
If you don't like a law then protest, yes, fight to get it changed, yes. But in the meantime we abide by the laws.
PART 4 @Taz "On this issue the Met and other forces are happy,to be used by TRA’s to enact petty vendettas against people who speak up against them and the govt happy to ignore the law" - if you are referring to the technique used to force the arrest of Graham Linehan and others, then that was using the law, not ignoring it. The technique was to contact the police and tell them that if they didn't implement the law then a judicial review would be sought. It may well have been petty (a value judgement) but it was not ignoring the law
The issue there is that the police have created an actual conflict of interest and the perception of one by their unwarranted closeness to Stonewall and other lobby groups and therefore no-one can be certain that their policing decisions have not been influenced by those lobby groups. This is inimical to proper policing. And it is one reason why, for instance, Northumbria police recently lost the case by Ms Linzi on their involvement in Pride.
... A trans woman who is outwardly indistinguishable from a biological woman will still be able to use women's loos...
The SC judgement specifically outlaws this.
It doesn't. It confirms that the Equality Act, when it refers to woman, means a biological women. It says nothing about banning. That is up to the supplier of the space/service. As I said, there is a widespread misunderstanding of the judgement.
I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Small boats are serious but not in he way the Right claim them to be. They are serious because too many people are dying trying to use them.
We urgently need a solution to the small boats, but for humanitarian reasons, rather than because there are hoards of evil foreign types coming to our shores.
I respect Cyclefree as an advocate for women's rights, but in my experience trans women are women. Less so cross dressers and fetishists, and unfortunately the elision between the two groups over the years has caused much of the current inbroglio.
I will raise the following points.
1. The current received wisdom of lawyers is that the supreme court judgement _allows_ discrimination on biological sex. It allows, for example, a female only gym to exclude a trans woman, if they so desire. Or a pub to exclude trans women from the ladies' loo. If it wants. It does not mandate it. It does not force it. It merely states that it is not against the law to do so.
2. The EHRC has, however, used this opportunity to push forward far more prescriptive restrictions which they laid before Bridget Philipson that would effectively ban all trans people from spaces of their chosen gender (and, under some readings, spaces of their birth gender, if they no longer look 'cis' enough - such as a trans man in with a beard being denied access to both male and female facilities under the guidance. It is a mistake to elide the supreme court judgement, which allows discrimination on biological sex, with the EHRC guidance, which mandates it - and is therefore on much rockier legal ground, and will likely be challenged in court - which is precisely why Labour understand it's toxic and don't want to bring it before Parliament.
3. The EHRC under Kishwer Falkner - a political appointment under Liz Truss - has been thoroughly captured by the anti-trans group Sex Matters, who have had privileged access not granted to other groups, and indeed have appeared to have written parts of the EHRC's "overreach" code which wilfully misinterprets the supreme court ruling for ideological reasons. This was exposed by a FOI request, the full dump of which is here - https://tacc.org.uk/2025/07/01/foi-exposes-ehrc-bias/
5. Dunt has also published much more recently on the current mess at the EHRC, the TL;DR of which is that proper procedures (including risk assessments etc) were not followed by the EHRC, and the government's lawyers have likely taken one look at the guidance and said "this contravenes several human rights laws" - indeed, the European commissioner for human rights has read the interim guidance (notably, since rescinded, after numerous flaws and contradictions have been pointed out, and said, not on your nelly mate -https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/14/trans-people-risk-exclusion-many-uk-public-spaces-rights-expert-says - Dunt's full article on how the EHRC became "a culture war campaign group" is here and I would suggest is essential reading to anyone wishing to hear "the other side" of the debate - https://iandunt.substack.com/p/judgement-day-for-the-ehrc-c99
On a personal note, I respect Cyclefree a great deal and she provides a clear female voice on a forum generally dominated by men. That is to be cherished, and valued. However, she is a talented writer who has the ability to present *opinion* dressed up in the language of fact. As I say the links I have provided above will provide you with much more detailed takes on the EHRC which take the same source material, and present them in a very different way.
On the subject of trans people attacking gender critical conferences and the like, I will simply say that this is a tiny minority of very pissed off radicals, and does not reflect the views of any of trans people I know. It's akin to one Muslim being a jihadi and now every other Muslim has to put up with being called a terrorist. Cyclefree would like to paint a picture of all trans people being radical terrorists. My experience of them is that the vast majority don't care about politics - they just want to transition and "pass" so they can live their lives in peace without being hurled abuse at on the street.
I have said my piece, presented links that provide readers with further detail and alternative viewpoints, and will not be engaging further with this post.
I'll gladly join others and congratulate Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
I don't disagree Stodge - the stats are pretty clear that underlying, widespread issues like child poverty are far bigger contributors to overall misery in the UK than small boats or indeed the trans issue.
But those hard statistics don't reflect the emotional and symbolic power of these issues. In the north of Scotland, poverty has an ongoing and devastating impact on people. Yet the reaction of my friends to the the rape of a 17-year old in Elgin by an asylum seeker would suggest that this is far, far more important to people - notwithstanding the widespead sexual abuse that happens at the hands of people from Scotland. This particular assault of a vulnerable girl is a direct consequence of UK Government's approach to immigration and Moray Council's housing of asylum seekers.
A challenge for people like me, who live in spreadsheets and models, is to find a way to measure this. An economist would use revealed preference to do so, and would likely find a value in the tens of billions.
Prince Andrew, sorry, Andrew MW, is another instance. Air Miles Andy's taste for subsidised holidays and bungs was well-known for decades, yet it is only when he was linked to underage sex that the public was outraged (and let's not get into technical arguments about whether Virginia was underage or even if they had sex at all, because it is perception that matters here).
ETA this is one area where the legal establishment is on a sticky wicket. Of course police should stop rioters and arsonists but the government should take more care not be seen as protecting child rapists and murderers.
Couldn't he describe himself as Capt. Mountbatten-Windsor RN (Retd)?
As he was a Seaman his retired rank was Commander, like James Bond.
He is also an Honorary VICE Admiral. Probably best not to use that title under the circumstances.
A seaman? He used to fly budgies. Definitely amongst the roof rats. What am I missing?
He may have piloted Naval choppers (more double entendre innuendo from the Mexican) but technically he was still Jolly Jack Tar the Sailor.
I asked ChatGBT about the implications of the SC judgement. I've also instructed ChatGBT to always say "I don't know" when it is not certain to help avoid hallucinations.
"The judgment does not by itself legally ban trans women from using women’s toilets across the board. But it means that under the Equality Act the term “woman” is defined by biological sex, and that gives legal cover for service providers to refuse access to a “women-only” space to someone assigned male at birth — provided the exclusion is lawful (legitimate aim + proportionate).
Because of the remaining grey areas (policy implementation, venue by venue decisions, human rights considerations) I must say: I don’t know exactly how this will play out in every scenario."
I respect Cyclefree as an advocate for women's rights, but in my experience trans women are women. Less so cross dressers and fetishists, and unfortunately the elision between the two groups over the years has caused much of the current inbroglio.
I will raise the following points.
1. The current received wisdom of lawyers is that the supreme court judgement _allows_ discrimination on biological sex. It allows, for example, a female only gym to exclude a trans woman, if they so desire. Or a pub to exclude trans women from the ladies' loo. If it wants. It does not mandate it. It does not force it. It merely states that it is not against the law to do so.
2. The EHRC has, however, used this opportunity to push forward far more prescriptive restrictions which they laid before Bridget Philipson that would effectively ban all trans people from spaces of their chosen gender (and, under some readings, spaces of their birth gender, if they no longer look 'cis' enough - such as a trans man in with a beard being denied access to both male and female facilities under the guidance. It is a mistake to elide the supreme court judgement, which allows discrimination on biological sex, with the EHRC guidance, which mandates it - and is therefore on much rockier legal ground, and will likely be challenged in court - which is precisely why Labour understand it's toxic and don't want to bring it before Parliament.
3. The EHRC under Kishwer Falkner - a political appointment under Liz Truss - has been thoroughly captured by the anti-trans group Sex Matters, who have had privileged access not granted to other groups, and indeed have appeared to have written parts of the EHRC's "overreach" code which wilfully misinterprets the supreme court ruling for ideological reasons. This was exposed by a FOI request, the full dump of which is here - https://tacc.org.uk/2025/07/01/foi-exposes-ehrc-bias/
@kyf_100 Thank you very much for this. I've learned something today. I was clear on the implications of the SC judgement but I hadn't appreciated that the EHRC has used this opportunity to push forward far more prescriptive restrictions, not warranted by the law. I can now see where @viewcode picked up his assertion. The EHRC needs to be put back in their box.
PART 4 @Taz "On this issue the Met and other forces are happy,to be used by TRA’s to enact petty vendettas against people who speak up against them and the govt happy to ignore the law" - if you are referring to the technique used to force the arrest of Graham Linehan and others, then that was using the law, not ignoring it. The technique was to contact the police and tell them that if they didn't implement the law then a judicial review would be sought. It may well have been petty (a value judgement) but it was not ignoring the law
The issue there is that the police have created an actual conflict of interest and the perception of one by their unwarranted closeness to Stonewall and other lobby groups and therefore no-one can be certain that their policing decisions have not been influenced by those lobby groups. This is inimical to proper policing. And it is one reason why, for instance, Northumbria police recently lost the case by Ms Linzi on their involvement in Pride.
It's not often I get to say this @Cyclefree , but you've misunderstood my post.
I and @Taz were referring to the actions of Lyndsay Watson, a trans woman and ex police officer, regarding several gender-critical activists. Ms Watson tweets/skeets[1] as "SEEN Police Official Open Public Network" and has been issuing threats/notifications to police forces that they should arrest those people or judicial review of their inaction would be sought. Which is why Linehan was arrested.
This is a different case to the actions of Lindsey Smith, a gender-critical cis woman, regarding Northumbria Police attendance at Pride Marches, the links to which[2] you were so kind to provide.
I'll gladly join others and congratulate @Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Small boats are serious but not in he way the Right claim them to be. They are serious because too many people are dying trying to use them.
We urgently need a solution to the small boats, but for humanitarian reasons, rather than because there are hoards of evil foreign types coming to our shores.
I think one irony with small boats is that they might actually be a bit better in terms of safety (my impression only, so I can happily stand being corrected) than the previous solution for getting one's foot on UK soil which involved hanging off, sneaking into or being offered a place on lorries.
I'm not sure I've seen the relative rates of deaths and injuries for small boat crossings to the UK, it feels somewhat lower than the Med where I did see the stats and something around 1.5-2% of individual crossing attempts ended in death.
I'll gladly join others and congratulate Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
I don't disagree Stodge - the stats are pretty clear that underlying, widespread issues like child poverty are far bigger contributors to overall misery in the UK than small boats or indeed the trans issue.
But those hard statistics don't reflect the emotional and symbolic power of these issues. In the north of Scotland, poverty has an ongoing and devastating impact on people. Yet the reaction of my friends to the the rape of a 17-year old in Elgin by an asylum seeker would suggest that this is far, far more important to people - notwithstanding the widespead sexual abuse that happens at the hands of people from Scotland. This particular assault of a vulnerable girl is a direct consequence of UK Government's approach to immigration and Moray Council's housing of asylum seekers.
A challenge for people like me, who live in spreadsheets and models, is to find a way to measure this. An economist would use revealed preference to do so, and would likely find a value in the tens of billions.
Prince Andrew, sorry, Andrew MW, is another instance. Air Miles Andy's taste for subsidised holidays and bungs was well-known for decades, yet it is only when he was linked to underage sex that the public was outraged (and let's not get into technical arguments about whether Virginia was underage or even if they had sex at all, because it is perception that matters here).
ETA this is one area where the legal establishment is on a sticky wicket. Of course police should stop rioters and arsonists but the government should take more care not be seen as protecting child rapists and murderers.
Couldn't he describe himself as Capt. Mountbatten-Windsor RN (Retd)?
As he was a Seaman his retired rank was Commander, like James Bond.
He is also an Honorary VICE Admiral. Probably best not to use that title under the circumstances.
A seaman? He used to fly budgies. Definitely amongst the roof rats. What am I missing?
The BBC and Sky News are now calling him Andrew Mountbatten Windsor but for some reason they are still referring to him for short as Andrew rather than (Mr) Mountbatten Windsor
I respect Cyclefree as an advocate for women's rights, but in my experience trans women are women. Less so cross dressers and fetishists, and unfortunately the elision between the two groups over the years has caused much of the current inbroglio.
I will raise the following points.
1. The current received wisdom of lawyers is that the supreme court judgement _allows_ discrimination on biological sex. It allows, for example, a female only gym to exclude a trans woman, if they so desire. Or a pub to exclude trans women from the ladies' loo. If it wants. It does not mandate it. It does not force it. It merely states that it is not against the law to do so.
2. The EHRC has, however, used this opportunity to push forward far more prescriptive restrictions which they laid before Bridget Philipson that would effectively ban all trans people from spaces of their chosen gender (and, under some readings, spaces of their birth gender, if they no longer look 'cis' enough - such as a trans man in with a beard being denied access to both male and female facilities under the guidance. It is a mistake to elide the supreme court judgement, which allows discrimination on biological sex, with the EHRC guidance, which mandates it - and is therefore on much rockier legal ground, and will likely be challenged in court - which is precisely why Labour understand it's toxic and don't want to bring it before Parliament.
3. The EHRC under Kishwer Falkner - a political appointment under Liz Truss - has been thoroughly captured by the anti-trans group Sex Matters, who have had privileged access not granted to other groups, and indeed have appeared to have written parts of the EHRC's "overreach" code which wilfully misinterprets the supreme court ruling for ideological reasons. This was exposed by a FOI request, the full dump of which is here - https://tacc.org.uk/2025/07/01/foi-exposes-ehrc-bias/
@kyf_100 Thank you very much for this. I've learned something today. I was clear on the implications of the SC judgement but I hadn't appreciated that the EHRC has used this opportunity to push forward far more prescriptive restrictions, not warranted by the law. I can now see where @viewcode picked up his assertion. The EHRC needs to be put back in their box.
Bit in bold. Yes. I modified my reply to indicate that, but you had already replied, and here we are
I'll gladly join others and congratulate Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
I don't disagree Stodge - the stats are pretty clear that underlying, widespread issues like child poverty are far bigger contributors to overall misery in the UK than small boats or indeed the trans issue.
But those hard statistics don't reflect the emotional and symbolic power of these issues. In the north of Scotland, poverty has an ongoing and devastating impact on people. Yet the reaction of my friends to the the rape of a 17-year old in Elgin by an asylum seeker would suggest that this is far, far more important to people - notwithstanding the widespead sexual abuse that happens at the hands of people from Scotland. This particular assault of a vulnerable girl is a direct consequence of UK Government's approach to immigration and Moray Council's housing of asylum seekers.
A challenge for people like me, who live in spreadsheets and models, is to find a way to measure this. An economist would use revealed preference to do so, and would likely find a value in the tens of billions.
Prince Andrew, sorry, Andrew MW, is another instance. Air Miles Andy's taste for subsidised holidays and bungs was well-known for decades, yet it is only when he was linked to underage sex that the public was outraged (and let's not get into technical arguments about whether Virginia was underage or even if they had sex at all, because it is perception that matters here).
ETA this is one area where the legal establishment is on a sticky wicket. Of course police should stop rioters and arsonists but the government should take more care not be seen as protecting child rapists and murderers.
Couldn't he describe himself as Capt. Mountbatten-Windsor RN (Retd)?
As he was a Seaman his retired rank was Commander, like James Bond.
He is also an Honorary VICE Admiral. Probably best not to use that title under the circumstances.
A seaman? He used to fly budgies. Definitely amongst the roof rats. What am I missing?
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
Canada is looking an inviting place to consider making a life. A solid economy, well regarded internationally, sensible government. Just the risk of being called up to defend against Trump's aim to make it the 51st state.
They should offer to incorporate Washington, Oregon, California into Canada - if the residents vote for it. Maybe Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan too. New York and New England would surely follow. That would wrong-foot MAGA....
I'd say Alaska should be target one.
But Canadian Provinces can secede far more easily than US States - in the US there would be a military response.
Alaska voted for Trump, as did Wisconsin and Michigan. Washington, Oregon or California might be interested in joining Liberal Canada if Trump or Vance remain in power beyond 2028, as might Illinois, Minnesota, New England and even New York
I'll gladly join others and congratulate Cyclefree on yet another excellent contribution.
There are many very serious and severe problems in this country - I quoted child poverty yesterday and this is another one - but we seem obsessed currently on small boats which, and I'll stand by for the flak, is essentially trivial in the grand scheme of things.
I don't disagree Stodge - the stats are pretty clear that underlying, widespread issues like child poverty are far bigger contributors to overall misery in the UK than small boats or indeed the trans issue.
But those hard statistics don't reflect the emotional and symbolic power of these issues. In the north of Scotland, poverty has an ongoing and devastating impact on people. Yet the reaction of my friends to the the rape of a 17-year old in Elgin by an asylum seeker would suggest that this is far, far more important to people - notwithstanding the widespead sexual abuse that happens at the hands of people from Scotland. This particular assault of a vulnerable girl is a direct consequence of UK Government's approach to immigration and Moray Council's housing of asylum seekers.
A challenge for people like me, who live in spreadsheets and models, is to find a way to measure this. An economist would use revealed preference to do so, and would likely find a value in the tens of billions.
Prince Andrew, sorry, Andrew MW, is another instance. Air Miles Andy's taste for subsidised holidays and bungs was well-known for decades, yet it is only when he was linked to underage sex that the public was outraged (and let's not get into technical arguments about whether Virginia was underage or even if they had sex at all, because it is perception that matters here).
ETA this is one area where the legal establishment is on a sticky wicket. Of course police should stop rioters and arsonists but the government should take more care not be seen as protecting child rapists and murderers.
Couldn't he describe himself as Capt. Mountbatten-Windsor RN (Retd)?
As he was a Seaman his retired rank was Commander, like James Bond.
He is also an Honorary VICE Admiral. Probably best not to use that title under the circumstances.
A seaman? He used to fly budgies. Definitely amongst the roof rats. What am I missing?
The BBC and Sky News are now calling him Andrew Mountbatten Windsor but for some reason they are still referring to him for short as Andrew rather than (Mr) Mountbatten Windsor
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
5. Dunt has also published much more recently on the current mess at the EHRC, the TL;DR of which is that proper procedures (including risk assessments etc) were not followed by the EHRC, and the government's lawyers have likely taken one look at the guidance and said "this contravenes several human rights laws" - indeed, the European commissioner for human rights has read the interim guidance (notably, since rescinded, after numerous flaws and contradictions have been pointed out, and said, not on your nelly mate -https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/14/trans-people-risk-exclusion-many-uk-public-spaces-rights-expert-says - Dunt's full article on how the EHRC became "a culture war campaign group" is here and I would suggest is essential reading to anyone wishing to hear "the other side" of the debate - https://iandunt.substack.com/p/judgement-day-for-the-ehrc-c99
On a personal note, I respect Cyclefree a great deal and she provides a clear female voice on a forum generally dominated by men. That is to be cherished, and valued. However, she is a talented writer who has the ability to present *opinion* dressed up in the language of fact. As I say the links I have provided above will provide you with much more detailed takes on the EHRC which take the same source material, and present them in a very different way.
On the subject of trans people attacking gender critical conferences and the like, I will simply say that this is a tiny minority of very pissed off radicals, and does not reflect the views of any of trans people I know. It's akin to one Muslim being a jihadi and now every other Muslim has to put up with being called a terrorist. Cyclefree would like to paint a picture of all trans people being radical terrorists. My experience of them is that the vast majority don't care about politics - they just want to transition and "pass" so they can live their lives in peace without being hurled abuse at on the street.
I have said my piece, presented links that provide readers with further detail and alternative viewpoints, and will not be engaging further with this post.
Please write an article. If you don't, I'll incorporate your bits into mine (and properly credit you)
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
We need a govt with vision to look at where the future jobs are when these jobs, and jobs like driving jobs, go. We can’t all be plumbers or brickies or sparks and the loss in tax revenue will be large. A robot tax here would incentivise some businesses to move.
It’s a hard one to reconcile. But the govt needs to grasp the nettle on the changes is bringing and radically downsizing our universities would be a good start.we don’t want 50% going to uni now. Not if there are no jobs or fewer jobs for them. It would also piss off the UCU so doubly worthwhile.
It is easy to argue with it (apart from the comment already made that she has lost her licence to practice medicine in the UK and the additional comment that she is a quack getting round UK regulation by having her company operate from Singapore.)
Gender may or may not be fluid or expressive. It may even be beyond control (whatever that means). But anyone wanting to live in our country still has to abide by its laws. The same laws they want to protect them. As individuals or organisations we can campaign against laws we don't agree with but also as individuals or organsiations we have no right to pick and choose which we obey. That, in the end, is the point of Cyclefree's piece.
It is easy to argue with it (apart from the comment already made that she has lost her licence to practice medicine in the UK and the additional comment that she is a quack getting round UK regulation by having her company operate from Singapore.)
Gender may or may not be fluid or expressive. It may even be beyond control (whatever that means). But anyone wanting to live in our country still has to abide by its laws. The same laws they want to protect them. As individuals or organisations we can campaign against laws we don't agree with but also as individuals or organsiations we have no right to pick and choose which we obey. That, in the end, is the point of Cyclefree's piece.
I'm glad someone has earnestly pointed out that it's nonsense, but I was joking!
5. Dunt has also published much more recently on the current mess at the EHRC, the TL;DR of which is that proper procedures (including risk assessments etc) were not followed by the EHRC, and the government's lawyers have likely taken one look at the guidance and said "this contravenes several human rights laws" - indeed, the European commissioner for human rights has read the interim guidance (notably, since rescinded, after numerous flaws and contradictions have been pointed out, and said, not on your nelly mate -https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/14/trans-people-risk-exclusion-many-uk-public-spaces-rights-expert-says - Dunt's full article on how the EHRC became "a culture war campaign group" is here and I would suggest is essential reading to anyone wishing to hear "the other side" of the debate - https://iandunt.substack.com/p/judgement-day-for-the-ehrc-c99
On a personal note, I respect Cyclefree a great deal and she provides a clear female voice on a forum generally dominated by men. That is to be cherished, and valued. However, she is a talented writer who has the ability to present *opinion* dressed up in the language of fact. As I say the links I have provided above will provide you with much more detailed takes on the EHRC which take the same source material, and present them in a very different way.
On the subject of trans people attacking gender critical conferences and the like, I will simply say that this is a tiny minority of very pissed off radicals, and does not reflect the views of any of trans people I know. It's akin to one Muslim being a jihadi and now every other Muslim has to put up with being called a terrorist. Cyclefree would like to paint a picture of all trans people being radical terrorists. My experience of them is that the vast majority don't care about politics - they just want to transition and "pass" so they can live their lives in peace without being hurled abuse at on the street.
I have said my piece, presented links that provide readers with further detail and alternative viewpoints, and will not be engaging further with this post.
Please write an article. If you don't, I'll incorporate your bits into mine (and properly credit you)
I am currently labouring under an epic, post-Primrose Hill drinkies hangover (at which, gasp, trans people were present, and the loos were unisex!) so it's a miracle I managed to throw a few coherent words together in response to this thread header.
If you want to incorporate my thoughts into a more cogent post of your own, by all means please do. You write well, and it would be great to see. I write what I do because my trans partner had her voice - and her life - snatched away from her at all too young an age. It is why I feel the need to post now, because I did not say enough, I did not speak out enough, when she was still alive. It also makes me quite emotive on this subject at times, which isn't always the best for objective writing.
I would consider writing a thread header on the trans issue at a later date if the mods were keen on it, perhaps once we've seen the final (not the interim) EHRC guidance that's been sent to Philipson, with an explainer on how we got here, at a later date. But for the moment, I feel like I'd just be re-writing/summarising Ian Dunt's journalism linked to above, with added invectives.
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
We need a govt with vision to look at where the future jobs are when these jobs, and jobs like driving jobs, go. We can’t all be plumbers or brickies or sparks and the loss in tax revenue will be large. A robot tax here would incentivise some businesses to move.
It’s a hard one to reconcile. But the govt needs to grasp the nettle on the changes is bringing and radically downsizing our universities would be a good start.we don’t want 50% going to uni now. Not if there are no jobs or fewer jobs for them. It would also piss off the UCU so doubly worthwhile.
Alternatively, if AI does take off to that point (and that remains an awfully big if, because it's currently only popular to the extent that people don't have to pay for it), that largely solves the "making enough stuff for everyone to have a good life" question. The question left is "what do we all do all day to give our lives meaning?" That's a much harder nut to crack, but useless university study seems as good an idea as any.
Otherwise, the risk of a nation of Prince Andrews looms.
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
We need a govt with vision to look at where the future jobs are when these jobs, and jobs like driving jobs, go. We can’t all be plumbers or brickies or sparks and the loss in tax revenue will be large. A robot tax here would incentivise some businesses to move.
It’s a hard one to reconcile. But the govt needs to grasp the nettle on the changes is bringing and radically downsizing our universities would be a good start.we don’t want 50% going to uni now. Not if there are no jobs or fewer jobs for them. It would also piss off the UCU so doubly worthwhile.
A robot tax would end up being global. We are looking at global unemployment, certainly in terms of lack of full time employment, of 40-50%+ in a few decades unless we start seeing some evidence AI can create jobs and not just replace them!
In some respects ironically interest in degrees might expand, as if there are no jobs for half the population, degree or no degree, you may as well do some further study of interest to you to fill your extensive spare time
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
We need a govt with vision to look at where the future jobs are when these jobs, and jobs like driving jobs, go. We can’t all be plumbers or brickies or sparks and the loss in tax revenue will be large. A robot tax here would incentivise some businesses to move.
It’s a hard one to reconcile. But the govt needs to grasp the nettle on the changes is bringing and radically downsizing our universities would be a good start.we don’t want 50% going to uni now. Not if there are no jobs or fewer jobs for them. It would also piss off the UCU so doubly worthwhile.
There is little evidence of a lack if jobs. What the problem is
1) collapse of the recruitment system - garbage is overwhelming attempts by genuine candidates to find genuine employers and the other way. 2) incompetence has reached demented level. We have both a shortage of GPs and and over supply of qualified GPs. 3) the jobs AI is killing are middle management in offices (mainly). 4) in many other jobs, AI is a useful assistant which can increase productivity (coding for example) 5) all past increases in productivity have increased the number of jobs in the end. 6) there is no sign of so called AI becoming general. LLMs can’t do that. 7) we are in a bubble. The true cost of AI will be shown after the bubble. 8) we need different skills - a mix of physical skills *combined with* intellectual skills. Some of the apprenticeships are taking the right road on this. This country is dying of generalist management by people who literally hate “technical knowledge”
I don't need to speak for all women. The law is clear as is biology. Whatever people may choose to believe (see @kyf_100) no-one can change sex as a matter of fact. They can modify their body to what they would like to be & if that makes them (& those around them who care for them) happy, good luck to them. But it does not make them a member of the opposite sex - either in biology or in law.
Given that, the question to be addressed is how to deal with those people who are dysphoric. This is partly a matter of the appropriate care & how the law should deal with them. On the latter, the law has made gender reassignment a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, giving such people the same rights as other groups & allowed recognition of their position with the GRA. But neither the GRA nor the Equality Act ever gave - or were intended to give - such people the right to remove rights belonging to another group. And that is the point. Unisex facilities provide all the facilities necessary. Laws against discrimination do the same.
But what is being demanded is that women lose what they also need. What I find very odd & troubling is how so many men who claim - often loudly, aggressively & virulently - how they are women, demonstrate so little, zero, in fact, empathy for actual women & no understanding of why women might worry about having a large bloke watching them getting undressed. In fact the behaviour of so many of these is very very male - aggressively so.
I will leave you with this example. Hampstead & Highgate Ponds have 3 ponds: one for men only, one for women only & one for both men and women - unisex or, if you prefer, inclusive. Everyone - whatever sex or gender they were could get what they wanted. But no: the trans-identified men insisted on going into the women only pond so that there were now 3 ponds where men could swim but no pond where only women could go. Women lost out. Women were excluded. There was no need for this. It is hard to see this as anything other than a determination to take away what women want & need rather than a claim for something that trans people needed - because they already had that.
Trans people have not lost anything they were entitled to. They have lost what people told them wrongly they could have. They have all the rights that everyone else has. Losing something you are not entitled to is not oppression, no matter how much those who had a financial & other interest in lying about the law scream & shout about it.
All of this could have been avoided if (a) activists had concentrated on improving facilities & necessary care & (b) they had been much more rigorous & scrupulous in not inviting in all sorts of creeps, perverts & sexual offenders to shelter under the "trans" umbrella. It has done dysphoric people no good at all. I feel sorry for the latter group. But I have zero time for the former & those enabling them.
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
We need a govt with vision to look at where the future jobs are when these jobs, and jobs like driving jobs, go. We can’t all be plumbers or brickies or sparks and the loss in tax revenue will be large. A robot tax here would incentivise some businesses to move.
It’s a hard one to reconcile. But the govt needs to grasp the nettle on the changes is bringing and radically downsizing our universities would be a good start.we don’t want 50% going to uni now. Not if there are no jobs or fewer jobs for them. It would also piss off the UCU so doubly worthwhile.
Alternatively, if AI does take off to that point (and that remains an awfully big if, because it's currently only popular to the extent that people don't have to pay for it), that largely solves the "making enough stuff for everyone to have a good life" question. The question left is "what do we all do all day to give our lives meaning?" That's a much harder nut to crack, but useless university study seems as good an idea as any.
Otherwise, the risk of a nation of Prince Andrews looms.
Dark Factories or Lights-out manufacturing. In this example, 11 production lines make a new smartphone every 1-3 seconds. The manufacturing software was developed in-house and self-optimises. Looking at it with my ex-manufacturing hat on makes me feel as if the west has abandoned it's future. No wonder Trump and his supporters have concerns about China.
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
We need a govt with vision to look at where the future jobs are when these jobs, and jobs like driving jobs, go. We can’t all be plumbers or brickies or sparks and the loss in tax revenue will be large. A robot tax here would incentivise some businesses to move.
It’s a hard one to reconcile. But the govt needs to grasp the nettle on the changes is bringing and radically downsizing our universities would be a good start.we don’t want 50% going to uni now. Not if there are no jobs or fewer jobs for them. It would also piss off the UCU so doubly worthwhile.
There is little evidence of a lack if jobs. What the problem is
1) collapse of the recruitment system - garbage is overwhelming attempts by genuine candidates to find genuine employers and the other way. 2) incompetence has reached demented level. We have both a shortage of GPs and and over supply of qualified GPs. 3) the jobs AI is killing are middle management in offices (mainly). 4) in many other jobs, AI is a useful assistant which can increase productivity (coding for example) 5) all past increases in productivity have increased the number of jobs in the end. 6) there is no sign of so called AI becoming general. LLMs can’t do that. 7) we are in a bubble. The true cost of AI will be shown after the bubble. 8) we need different skills - a mix of physical skills *combined with* intellectual skills. Some of the apprenticeships are taking the right road on this. This country is dying of generalist management by people who literally hate “technical knowledge”
Yes, 5 is right, and we need a govt with vision to see where they are.
We shouldn’t be scared of AI. It will change how things are done. But it should present opportunities too.
My old,job I had a quality manager who, whenever I raised a change request on our CAPA system put it into A.I. and it spat out the questions. Still needs someone at that level to review the answers.
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
We need a govt with vision to look at where the future jobs are when these jobs, and jobs like driving jobs, go. We can’t all be plumbers or brickies or sparks and the loss in tax revenue will be large. A robot tax here would incentivise some businesses to move.
It’s a hard one to reconcile. But the govt needs to grasp the nettle on the changes is bringing and radically downsizing our universities would be a good start.we don’t want 50% going to uni now. Not if there are no jobs or fewer jobs for them. It would also piss off the UCU so doubly worthwhile.
There is little evidence of a lack if jobs. What the problem is
1) collapse of the recruitment system - garbage is overwhelming attempts by genuine candidates to find genuine employers and the other way. 2) incompetence has reached demented level. We have both a shortage of GPs and and over supply of qualified GPs. 3) the jobs AI is killing are middle management in offices (mainly). 4) in many other jobs, AI is a useful assistant which can increase productivity (coding for example) 5) all past increases in productivity have increased the number of jobs in the end. 6) there is no sign of so called AI becoming general. LLMs can’t do that. 7) we are in a bubble. The true cost of AI will be shown after the bubble. 8) we need different skills - a mix of physical skills *combined with* intellectual skills. Some of the apprenticeships are taking the right road on this. This country is dying of generalist management by people who literally hate “technical knowledge”
Yes, 5 is right, and we need a govt with vision to see where they are.
We shouldn’t be scared of AI. It will change how things are done. But it should present opportunities too.
My old,job I had a quality manager who, whenever I raised a change request on our CAPA system put it into A.I. and it spat out the questions. Still needs someone at that level to review the answers.
Problem is what is described as Artificial Intelligence is really a probability engine attached to a large database - which means it doesn't give you facts, just the most common answer on the internet for a given question.
Which is why I'm continually having to point out that the stuff people are telling me AI tells them to do is either out of date or about a different product to the one they actually use...
The points I make apply equally to gays and lesbians, particularly the latter, because the SC judgment clarified - to the extent this ever needed clarifying - that sexual orientation is based on sex not certificates. It said clearly in paragraph 206 that the concept of sexual orientation towards members of a particular sex would be rendered meaningless otherwise.
It is typical of TERF rhetoric to make expansive claims based on legal judgements that are, in reality, much more narrowly drawn.
The Supreme Court judgement is indeed very clear & they repeat the same point a number of times: their judgement applies to the interpretation of terms within the Equality Act for the purposes of the legal interpretation of that Act alone. Para 2 of the judgement states explicitly:
“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.”
The SC has not, in fact, stated that sexual orientation is “based on sex, not certificates”: Cyclefree might very much wish that she could extend their judgement to the entirety of public life in this way, but the SC itself refutes her attempts to do so. The elision between these ideas in the work of someone who sets such pride in their precise legal judgement seems rather telling - Cyclefree writes about what she wants to be true rather than what is true. kyf_100’s comment that “she is a talented writer who has the ability to present *opinion* dressed up in the language of fact” seems to be to be (sadly) accurate.
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
We need a govt with vision to look at where the future jobs are when these jobs, and jobs like driving jobs, go. We can’t all be plumbers or brickies or sparks and the loss in tax revenue will be large. A robot tax here would incentivise some businesses to move.
It’s a hard one to reconcile. But the govt needs to grasp the nettle on the changes is bringing and radically downsizing our universities would be a good start.we don’t want 50% going to uni now. Not if there are no jobs or fewer jobs for them. It would also piss off the UCU so doubly worthwhile.
There is little evidence of a lack if jobs. What the problem is
1) collapse of the recruitment system - garbage is overwhelming attempts by genuine candidates to find genuine employers and the other way. 2) incompetence has reached demented level. We have both a shortage of GPs and and over supply of qualified GPs. 3) the jobs AI is killing are middle management in offices (mainly). 4) in many other jobs, AI is a useful assistant which can increase productivity (coding for example) 5) all past increases in productivity have increased the number of jobs in the end. 6) there is no sign of so called AI becoming general. LLMs can’t do that. 7) we are in a bubble. The true cost of AI will be shown after the bubble. 8) we need different skills - a mix of physical skills *combined with* intellectual skills. Some of the apprenticeships are taking the right road on this. This country is dying of generalist management by people who literally hate “technical knowledge”
This is the mistake Leon has made, repeating that made by all sorts of people as each technological innovation arrives, reaching way back to the Luddites. They focus narrow-mindedly on the work being replaced whilst being blinkered as to the new possibilities that will arrive to replace it. Hence those that thought that woollen looms would lead to mass unemployment, that washing machines and vacuum cleaners would deliver us a life mostly of leisure, and that email and the Internet would eliminate the need for office work.
PART 4 @Taz "On this issue the Met and other forces are happy,to be used by TRA’s to enact petty vendettas against people who speak up against them and the govt happy to ignore the law" - if you are referring to the technique used to force the arrest of Graham Linehan and others, then that was using the law, not ignoring it. The technique was to contact the police and tell them that if they didn't implement the law then a judicial review would be sought. It may well have been petty (a value judgement) but it was not ignoring the law
The issue there is that the police have created an actual conflict of interest and the perception of one by their unwarranted closeness to Stonewall and other lobby groups and therefore no-one can be certain that their policing decisions have not been influenced by those lobby groups. This is inimical to proper policing. And it is one reason why, for instance, Northumbria police recently lost the case by Ms Linzi on their involvement in Pride.
It's not often I get to say this @Cyclefree , but you've misunderstood my post.
I and @Taz were referring to the actions of Lyndsay Watson, a trans woman and ex police officer, regarding several gender-critical activists. Ms Watson tweets/skeets[1] as "SEEN Police Official Open Public Network" and has been issuing threats/notifications to police forces that they should arrest those people or judicial review of their inaction would be sought. Which is why Linehan was arrested.
This is a different case to the actions of Lindsey Smith, a gender-critical cis woman, regarding Northumbria Police attendance at Pride Marches, the links to which[2] you were so kind to provide.
Lindsey Smith started because NUFC banned her for daring to post gender critical comments online. Plod investigated. Found no crime. But NUfC still banned her for three years. Good for her for not taking being shat on lying down.
PART 4 @Taz "On this issue the Met and other forces are happy,to be used by TRA’s to enact petty vendettas against people who speak up against them and the govt happy to ignore the law" - if you are referring to the technique used to force the arrest of Graham Linehan and others, then that was using the law, not ignoring it. The technique was to contact the police and tell them that if they didn't implement the law then a judicial review would be sought. It may well have been petty (a value judgement) but it was not ignoring the law
The same person using plod to enact their personal vendetta, plod should just tell them to bring on the judicial review, is bent out of shape over being asked to attend a ‘voluntary interview’
Anyway they didn’t implement the law. Linehan was exonerated. No charges forthcoming.
I think Mary Harrington is right about Andrew. Casting him out is a convenient way to try to "save" the monarchy.
And make him the scapegoat so few further investigations into the other wealthy and powerful people in Epstein's orbit
That won't work.
The stupidity of the Republicans was to wind up the "Epstein file" into a piece of red meat they could deliver to MAGA. They might not have known of the reports of the photos of Trump in Epstein's safe. But Trump and perhaps some of those around him know what horrors await publication. They can bring down not just senior Republican figures and backers - but potentially even Trump himself.
The panic measure of closing down the House so that no vote can happen look to be the actions of people having no idea how to handle the problem. And now they have tens of millions of the poorest of Americans being deprived of the state support that feeds them, as fall-out from trying to keep this Epstein problem from being delivered ot the public domain. It is a problem just getting worse and worse.
I think Mary Harrington is right about Andrew. Casting him out is a convenient way to try to "save" the monarchy.
And make him the scapegoat so few further investigations into the other wealthy and powerful people in Epstein's orbit
That won't work.
The stupidity of the Republicans was to wind up the "Epstein file" into a piece of red meat they could deliver to MAGA. They might not have known of the reports of the photos of Trump in Epstein's safe. But Trump and perhaps some of those around him know what horrors await publication. They can bring down not just senior Republican figures and backers - but potentially even Trump himself.
The panic measure of closing down the House so that no vote can happen look to be the actions of people having no idea how to handle the problem. And now they have tens of millions of the poorest of Americans being deprived of the state support that feeds them, as fall-out from trying to keep this Epstein problem from being delivered ot the public domain. It is a problem just getting worse and worse.
And have compounded that by denying food aid (for which there were still funds available) unless the Democrats agree to their demands to allow them to gut healthcare funding.
Cyclefree (your reply snipped to allow space for mine under the character count):
Part 1.
Thank you for your considered response.
As I say below, I am labouring under the most frightful post-party hangover today, and when I say "I'm not engaging further with this debate" it's largely because I'm not firing on all thrusters and can't be as intellectually thorough as I would like, and as the debate deserves.
So I will try to respond to you as best I can, but please forgive me if my thoughts aren't as polished as I might like.
Something that may surprise you - I find much to agree with in your comment.
I shouldn't be allowed, for example, to stick a wig on, call myself a woman, and go waving my tallywhacker around the women's pond in Hampstead. Unfortunately a small, but very vocal minority, do want to argue this position. And they are wrong.
I am friends with a half dozen or so trans people, and through them I have met many more. A small number of whom, frankly I have gasped at in exasperation and thought - no you're not, you're a fetishistic man. This creates a problem - "good" transes and "bad" transes (like the "deserving" vs "undeserving" poor). How are we to determine which is which?
My view is that some common sense is needed. Fully transitioned women who have been on hormones for many years and had 'the snip' should be treated the same as any other woman in practice. I cannot imagine a scenario where a fetishistic man has his winkie cut off just so he can perv on ladies at the pond. However, it should be the right of any organisation to exclude whomever it wants. If I want to set up a private member's club for white, middle aged men called Geoff, and exclude all others - that is my right. A blanket law (as the EHCR) demands is the opposite - if a pond, members club, or pub wishes to allow trans women to use the facilities, it should be up to the individual institution.
Transition, however, is a process. It took my partner ten years on the NHS from first diagnosis to getting 'the snip'. Full transition can be done privately in a year or two, but costs about £100k. This leaves an awful lot of people 'somewhere in the middle' where they pass fully (but still have a winkie while they're on the waiting list). And some, like an acquaintance of mine, who is devastatingly beautiful and utterly feminine - but is 6'4" - will always be visibly trans, even post-op.
I think the absolutist position to take is that you are only treated as a woman, with access to 'women only spaces' post op. And that is a reasonable, if extreme, position to take. The messy middle is that plenty of trans women 'pass' within a year or two but wait years on the NHS for the op. What do do with a woman who for all intents and purposes looks and acts exactly like any other woman (and thus would be endangered by being forced into male spaces, as the EHRC demandds), but is pre-op? And what to do with my friend who is 6'4 and would pass imperceptibly in women's spaces if she were only a foot shorter? Does she remain a "man" after she is post op? How do you account for these people while excluding the "blokes in wigs" types?
It is a messy business, and the messy compromise we've had for many years is that if you pass, you get to use women's spaces, and if you don't, you don't. This leads to the messy problem of passing privilege and what to do with the non-fetishistic, fully transitioned women who for various reasons (e.g. height) will never fully pass.
As you say, and I agree with you, sheltering the "creeps and pervs" under the trans umbrella does genuine trans women much harm - but there are plenty of edge cases where women are waiting years on the NHS waiting list, or even post-op, which will always be problematic.
The answer is a bit of kindness, and a bit of common sense.
The EHCR however have, for political reasons, decided to force through an extremist interpretation of a supreme court ruling which was never intended to be read in the way in which their guidance has been written. That is what I find unacceptable.
The problem is that the law is a mess. The law may be clear, but the application is not.
Trans-women and Trans-men exist, and in significant numbers. Accessing health care for surgical transition has become much more difficult, with the Cass report effectively closing down care as the waiting lists are many years long. Even fully "passing" post surgical Trans-folk would be restricted to use facilities of their biological sex. So these people are either forced back into the closet, housebound, or can not use public facitities. Its a very punitive approach.
Then there's the problem of enforcement. Who can check the biological sex of everyone in the workplace, restaurant or public convenience? Who is responsible for the offence caused when users are incorrectly challenged. It is facile to deny that these are real problems. In practice this law is going to be openly flouted, and a law that is widely ignored, particularly in avante garde or hipster parts of the country.
I was thinking the other night about @BlancheLivermore bad hospital experience when ill. There were several aspects to this, but one was the lack of privacy. We are unusual as a developed country to expect 6 or so people to share the same ward bay. In most similar countries hospitals have single rooms with ensuite. Similarly communal changing areas without cubicles are the norm in all the hospitals that I have worked in. This does not match modern cultural mores. Newly constructed facilities should be built differently, but we have a vast legacy estate that cannot simply be altered. Privacy includes much more than sex and gender aspects.
There was never any need to check the biological sex of people using loos and rest rooms before and there won't be now unless you assume that trans people are the sort of people who will break the law . And if they are then it is absolutely right that they should be treated like other law breakers. No man passes and no one can surgically transition to the opposite sex because changing sex is impossible. It is at best cosmetic surgery though it may make that person content. In any event, the vast majority of trans people do not have surgery of any kind and many do nothing at all - just utter magic words and expect to have access to other people's spaces.
Is that true ? I can find no reliable statistics on the percentage of trans individuals who undergo surgery (and indeed no really reliable statistics on the number of transgender individuals).
Certainly opinion surveys (for what they are worth) seem indicate that a very large proportion do want surgery, and a rather smaller number are able to access it.
The points I make apply equally to gays and lesbians, particularly the latter, because the SC judgment clarified - to the extent this ever needed clarifying - that sexual orientation is based on sex not certificates. It said clearly in paragraph 206 that the concept of sexual orientation towards members of a particular sex would be rendered meaningless otherwise.
It is typical of TERF rhetoric to make expansive claims based on legal judgements that are, in reality, much more narrowly drawn.
The Supreme Court judgement is indeed very clear & they repeat the same point a number of times: their judgement applies to the interpretation of terms within the Equality Act for the purposes of the legal interpretation of that Act alone. Para 2 of the judgement states explicitly:
“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.”
The SC has not, in fact, stated that sexual orientation is “based on sex, not certificates”: Cyclefree might very much wish that she could extend their judgement to the entirety of public life in this way, but the SC itself refutes her attempts to do so. The elision between these ideas in the work of someone who sets such pride in their precise legal judgement seems rather telling - Cyclefree writes about what she wants to be true rather than what is true. kyf_100’s comment that “she is a talented writer who has the ability to present *opinion* dressed up in the language of fact” seems to be to be (sadly) accurate.
You are being disingenuous. The SC ruling does indeed clarify that the Equalities Act 2010 reference to women refers only to biological women. Everything else that Cyclefree is writing about stems explicitely from that definition. She is being completely accurate in her claims and it is you who are trying to twist what she has said to make it seem as if she is misrepresenting the SC ruling. Not surprising given you start your fatuous post with an insult.
I think Mary Harrington is right about Andrew. Casting him out is a convenient way to try to "save" the monarchy.
Two things can be true: Andrew is a deeply stupid, over entitled sex addict unscrupulous about how he feeds his addiction, while the monarchy will throw even its own under the bus to preserve its franchise.
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
What happens if all the robots are based in other countries ?
A rather depressing and free read from the Times. Interview with the head of Reed, a large recruiter, on the current market and the risks to it. Basically it’s a jobs desert at the moment, AI is decimating entry level jobs for grads jn some professions, and the so-called workers rights bill, all 197 pages of it, at the behest of the Unions will not help.
If AI is decimating graduate jobs without replacement, sooner rather than later a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable. There will be too many votes in it for at least one or two of the main parties not to propose it
What happens if all the robots are based in other countries ?
As I said, the robot tax would be global. No party would be elected anywhere on the planet without one to fund a UBI if AI leads to global unemployment of near 50% in terms of full time roles
The points I make apply equally to gays and lesbians, particularly the latter, because the SC judgment clarified - to the extent this ever needed clarifying - that sexual orientation is based on sex not certificates. It said clearly in paragraph 206 that the concept of sexual orientation towards members of a particular sex would be rendered meaningless otherwise.
It is typical of TERF rhetoric to make expansive claims based on legal judgements that are, in reality, much more narrowly drawn.
The Supreme Court judgement is indeed very clear & they repeat the same point a number of times: their judgement applies to the interpretation of terms within the Equality Act for the purposes of the legal interpretation of that Act alone. Para 2 of the judgement states explicitly:
“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.”
The SC has not, in fact, stated that sexual orientation is “based on sex, not certificates”: Cyclefree might very much wish that she could extend their judgement to the entirety of public life in this way, but the SC itself refutes her attempts to do so. The elision between these ideas in the work of someone who sets such pride in their precise legal judgement seems rather telling - Cyclefree writes about what she wants to be true rather than what is true. kyf_100’s comment that “she is a talented writer who has the ability to present *opinion* dressed up in the language of fact” seems to be to be (sadly) accurate.
You are being disingenuous. The SC ruling does indeed clarify that the Equalities Act 2010 reference to women refers only to biological women. Everything else that Cyclefree is writing about stems explicitely from that definition. She is being completely accurate in her claims and it is you who are trying to twist what she has said to make it seem as if she is misrepresenting the SC ruling. Not surprising given you start your fatuous post with an insult.
Cyclefree’s writing clearly extends the SC judgement outside it’s remit. If you can’t see that then I don’t know what to say: it seems clear enough to me. There is no caveat in the paragraph I quoted about “sexual orientation is based on sex not certificates” that points out that this only applies within the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 is there?
2. It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).
Cyclefree may (and probably does, I imagine!) wish that the SC judgement defines these terms for the purposes of public debate & for the interpretation of UK law more generally. The SC disagrees with her however.
I think Mary Harrington is right about Andrew. Casting him out is a convenient way to try to "save" the monarchy.
And make him the scapegoat so few further investigations into the other wealthy and powerful people in Epstein's orbit
That won't work.
The stupidity of the Republicans was to wind up the "Epstein file" into a piece of red meat they could deliver to MAGA. They might not have known of the reports of the photos of Trump in Epstein's safe. But Trump and perhaps some of those around him know what horrors await publication. They can bring down not just senior Republican figures and backers - but potentially even Trump himself.
The panic measure of closing down the House so that no vote can happen look to be the actions of people having no idea how to handle the problem. And now they have tens of millions of the poorest of Americans being deprived of the state support that feeds them, as fall-out from trying to keep this Epstein problem from being delivered ot the public domain. It is a problem just getting worse and worse.
Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, Bill Richardson were amongst senior Democrats who hung out with Epstein, it was not just Trump and some Republicans who were mates with him
Comments
I don't have a particular aversion to PPE grads and career SPADs running the country tbh. I think we could do with more former council leaders though.
The Supreme Court judgment is well-written but not intellectually coherent. Biological sex counts except when it doesn't, appears to be its guiding principle.
Why panic that the government might be planning to change the law? It suggests that following the law comes second to freezing the law, which is fine and even welcome as a political opinion but that is what it is.
GRCs handed out like confetti and self-id are the real problems. If post-op trans men and post-op trans women were regarded as "real" men and women, and pre-op ones were not, that would have made things so much clearer and fairer. (And yes, there'd be a small grey area in those waiting for treatment.)
As an aside, it worries me that disabled facilities are under threat by both sides using them as de facto gender-neutral facilities for the able-bodied.
CumberlandGap said:
» show previous quotes
QT audiences are like election hustings. The local great and good from political parties, local ngos and councils attend en masse.
Went to hustings in 2019 in a constituency that overwhelmingly voted brexit, the Tory mp (who didn’t vote to leave) got booed when he insisted that it was important that the vote be respected. The audience was hostile to everything he said. By the measure of the hustings you would think he was going to lose his seat. He won with an 8,000 majority.
______
I have been watching BBC QuestionTime since I became in engaged with politics nearly 40 years ago, a rule of thumb, I have always enjoyed watching and guessing the the tribal activists who were either engaged enough to turn up in the audience and who managed to get to ask a question or got a response as a member of the audience as a result. It has always amused me when their opponents were quick to rush onto social media to out them as a tribal member of a particular party as if it was a crime for a political anorak from a political party to be so engaged they took part in the longest running political TV debate show on TV!
Who else would be bothered enough to engage and appear on BBC QuestionTime?! When ever there is a particular issue making the news, you can be sure that the next week there will be plenty vocal advocates for that issue in the audience. Where ever BBC Question TIme is, its never ever a really balanced audience of the views across the UK on the night.
A funny story, BBC Scotland were doing a Scottish leadership debate at Aberdeen University, now son No1 and son No3 who were Scottish Conservative voters at the time happened to be home when it was advertised and I said go for it you will standout and you will get picked, and they did! They had a great night, they were laughing because even the the Labour supporting ladies behind them raved about Ruth Davidson's performance. And to add to that at the end of the debate a lady who was a Scottish Libdem ran up to her and said you were great, and I say that as a SLibdem who cannot vote vote for you! But my favourite moment was son No3 sending me a message with a picture of son No1 with Ruth Davidson after the debate, and saying thanks Mum for pushing us to apply and go to this debate, we had a brilliant night!
https://medium.com/@rkilner/advantage-norris-in-the-f1-title-race-8b6aad231376
@OldKingCole will feel quite at home. Though there's a distinct absence of youth delinquency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K0-3XCrHTk
On the other hand, there was Eric Pickles, whose tenure as SoS for Communites and Local Government continues to cause all sorts of problems.
Re Sturgeon, not the first time SCons are out of step with public opinion.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25582567.nicola-sturgeon-named-best-politician-last-30-years/
https://unherd.com/newsroom/antisemitism-row-splits-feminist-group/
He is also an Honorary VICE Admiral. Probably best not to use that title under the circumstances.
"Vote for us so that we can change the law we brought in to remove rights for women and gay people. Oh and that Farage - he's a fascist."
I dunno. Doesn't strike me as an attractive proposition, frankly.
Meanwhile I am having delicious porridge and cream for my late breakfast in Ulverston's Market Hall cafe. I may buy some buttons later and Wonderweb tape, plant more bulbs, attend drinks at the Village Hall and then resume cat-sitting duties for Daughter.
A woman of many parts, me.
Damn right they haven't. Most who have tried will have had at some time responses varying from "f*ck off I'll do what I want" to "I left you space" to "get a life" to "do you want a bunch of fives?".
And since they can't run away easily and are vulnerable, they give up out of fear.
We’re choosing renewal over decline.
Unity over division.
Unlocking the potential of everyone in every part of the UK.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1984559743826907475
"ChatGPT, please generate three phrases that mean absolutely nothing."
I replied
"It's called StaLLMer"
Then I noticed the little Grok icon that says "Explain this post", and clicked
A side window opened up and told me
"This post is a pun on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's name, twisting it to "StaLLMer" to suggest stalling or inaction, in response to criticism of his vague policy phrases like "renewal over decline."
It replies to conservative commentator Daniel Hannan's satirical jab at Starmer, where Hannan asks ChatGPT to generate meaningless slogans mirroring the PM's rhetoric.
The low engagement (1 view, no interactions) indicates it's a niche, early-morning quip in a thread amplifying right-leaning mockery of Labour's leadership on November 1, 2025."
I replied
"The LLM in StaLLMer stands for Large Language Model. Are you familiar with such a thing?"
Grok told me all about LLMs
I said
"Do you understand the joke better now that I've pointed that out?"
Grok,
"Absolutely, now that you've pointed out the "LLM" in "StaLLMer" stands for Large Language Model, the joke clicks into place even more! The pun works on multiple levels, and your insight adds a delicious layer of tech-savvy humor.Here’s how I see it now:The Base Pun: "StaLLMer" is a play on Keir Starmer's name, with "stall" implying inaction or delay—likely a jab at perceived sluggishness in his leadership or Labour’s policy rollout, as hinted by the web results mentioning his unpopularity and internal party criticism in 2025.
The LLM Twist: By embedding "LLM" (Large Language Model), Blanche Livermore cleverly ties it to the earlier post by Daniel Hannan, where he mocks Starmer’s vague slogans by asking ChatGPT (an LLM) to generate meaningless phrases. The joke suggests Starmer’s rhetoric might as well be AI-generated fluff—empty, polished words with no substance, a critique amplified by the context of LLMs sometimes producing hollow text.
The Satirical Edge: It’s a double-edged swipe: at Starmer for stalling (politically or rhetorically) and at the rise of AI like me, implying his leadership could be outsourced to a language model with similar effect.
With this in mind, the humor feels sharper—it's not just a political dig but a tech-culture nod, blending Westminster woes with a wink at AI’s role in shaping modern discourse. The timing (12:03 PM GMT today, November 1, 2025) also fits a fresh, early-day quip in a thread already buzzing with conservative mockery. Does that align with how you see it, or is there another angle you’d like to explore?"
Part of me wants to laugh - it feels like end state where even the law is stopped from working.
We’ve come a long way since the Law was a couple of books that the local Lord puzzled over in medieval times, haven’t we?
If Labour hadn't come to government with no apparent plan, I'd have imagined SKS to be one of those who believe deep down that if you keep planning your project in minute enough detail, you'll never have to do any actual work to accomplish the objectives.
How is this related to the thread? Perhaps it's because we are all human and treating people decently is a natural trait.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/andrew-is-modern-britains-scapegoat
Taupe over Mauve
Chicken soup over Tomato soup
Dressing to the left over Dressing to the right
Double-breasted over Single-breasted
Flares over Drainpipes
Mods over Rockers
Unlocking the dribbling moron of everyone in every part of the UK.
Mods would never wear flares.
PART 1
@Viewcode
My thoughts on the SC ruling, which I am trying to work up into an article, are here:
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5337029#Comment_5337029
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5337049#Comment_5337049
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5337052#Comment_5337052
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5337053#Comment_5337053
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5337054#Comment_5337054
@ydoethur
"That's exactly the way they are behaving anyway" - Well, yes
@Cyclefree
"Judging by the latest evidence from the MoJ a far greater proportion of TW prisoners are sexual offenders than male prisoners or female ones." - I remind you of my Viewcode Rant that relative figures (proportions) are useless without absolute numbers and vice-versa
"No-one is banned. They are simply asked to use the facilities for their sex or unisex ones."
Whilst technically true, this overlooks the Supreme Court decision that female-to-males should be banned from their birth sex toilets if they are too manly, a duty I think the SC made up out of thin air.
@Sandpit
"...Starmer is worried about offending a very small but vocal group of activists, who are generally of the left but have a reputation for quite extreme behaviour. They’re the sort of people who would follow him around to every event he attends, with every intention of disrupting it..." - This overlooks two things:
@DecrepiterJohnL
"GRCs handed out like confetti". In the twenty years since their creation, only 8,000 have been issued. There are 68million people in the UK. That's one piece of confetti per 8,500 people. It's hardly Katie Price, now is it...
@LostPassword
"Starmer has been characterised as a stickler for the law and for process. He waits for the process/courts to come to a judgement and then implements it" - I think that's a disadvantage, not an advantage, and if he thinks like that he should have stayed a lawyer. Parliament is supreme and tells the SC what the law is, not vice versa. If he agrees with the EHRC interpretation then it should go thru toot-suite (sic). If he doesn't, then he should move a Bill to force his own interpretation. Taking refuge in process just shows how bad he is at the job.
@Taz
"On this issue the Met and other forces are happy,to be used by TRA’s to enact petty vendettas against people who speak up against them and the govt happy to ignore the law" - if you are referring to the technique used to force the arrest of Graham Linehan and others, then that was using the law, not ignoring it. The technique was to contact the police and tell them that if they didn't implement the law then a judicial review would be sought. It may well have been petty (a value judgement) but it was not ignoring the law
As you say, there is no banning of trans from loos etc.
But nor are they asked to use the facilities of their own sex.
It is up to the supplier of the services or spaces to determine the access rules.
The SC judgement simply means that a trans person cannot use the protected sex characteristic of the Equality Law to enforce access to a space or service reserved for the opposite sex.
In practice it is not a big deal. A trans woman who is outwardly indistinguishable from a biological woman will still be able to use women's loos.
I think there is a great deal of unnecessary heat on both sides of this issue. It's not a big deal.
It just means that a "man in a frock", obviously a man, who claims to be female, cannot use the law to enforce access to women's spaces. Quite right too.
@AnneJGP
"Do politicians not understand that ordinary people who are parents will do anything to protect their children from body-destroying ideologies? I have no children and I have the greatest sympathy for those with true body dysmorphia or other real problems. But personally I would rather be obliged to wear a burqa myself than have the children of my society ruined by this ideology" -
If that is the case then it should be imposed via the law, not via medics. Medicine prioritises the interests of the individual, law the interests of the collective. Genital surgery in the UK has always been illegal for those unde a certain age, I think 16, and can be extended to hormones and puberty blockers if Parliament desires.
Meanwhile women are gathering today to protest against the failure to enforce the judgment in London, Cardiff and Edinburgh. The 199 Days March. We'll see if the politicians manage to allow both to have their say without allowing the hecklers veto to prevent women protesting at all. Police Scotland, in particular have been bloody awful at this and the Met were no better back in April when the protests by those upset by the SC judgment led to criminal damage and the defacement of statues of famous suffragettes, with no charges ever brought.
What is needed are a few high profile prosecutions of organisations and, hopefully, of individuals, to show they cannot just ignore the law because they don't like it.
If you don't like a law then protest, yes, fight to get it changed, yes. But in the meantime we abide by the laws.
See https://www.11kbw.com/content/uploads/AC-2024-LDS-000212-Smith-v-CC-Northumbria-Police-Approved-Final-Judgment.pdf.
See also this article which explains the issues with the police approach - https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/12/15/conflicts-of-interest/
It says nothing about banning. That is up to the supplier of the space/service.
As I said, there is a widespread misunderstanding of the judgement.
We urgently need a solution to the small boats, but for humanitarian reasons, rather than because there are hoards of evil foreign types coming to our shores.
I respect Cyclefree as an advocate for women's rights, but in my experience trans women are women. Less so cross dressers and fetishists, and unfortunately the elision between the two groups over the years has caused much of the current inbroglio.
I will raise the following points.
1. The current received wisdom of lawyers is that the supreme court judgement _allows_ discrimination on biological sex. It allows, for example, a female only gym to exclude a trans woman, if they so desire. Or a pub to exclude trans women from the ladies' loo. If it wants. It does not mandate it. It does not force it. It merely states that it is not against the law to do so.
2. The EHRC has, however, used this opportunity to push forward far more prescriptive restrictions which they laid before Bridget Philipson that would effectively ban all trans people from spaces of their chosen gender (and, under some readings, spaces of their birth gender, if they no longer look 'cis' enough - such as a trans man in with a beard being denied access to both male and female facilities under the guidance. It is a mistake to elide the supreme court judgement, which allows discrimination on biological sex, with the EHRC guidance, which mandates it - and is therefore on much rockier legal ground, and will likely be challenged in court - which is precisely why Labour understand it's toxic and don't want to bring it before Parliament.
3. The EHRC under Kishwer Falkner - a political appointment under Liz Truss - has been thoroughly captured by the anti-trans group Sex Matters, who have had privileged access not granted to other groups, and indeed have appeared to have written parts of the EHRC's "overreach" code which wilfully misinterprets the supreme court ruling for ideological reasons. This was exposed by a FOI request, the full dump of which is here - https://tacc.org.uk/2025/07/01/foi-exposes-ehrc-bias/
4. The above has been effectively covered here, in much more detail and much better written than I could manage, by Ian Dunt - https://iandunt.substack.com/p/the-trans-rights-stitch-up-2ca?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=7aibo&triedRedirect=true
5. Dunt has also published much more recently on the current mess at the EHRC, the TL;DR of which is that proper procedures (including risk assessments etc) were not followed by the EHRC, and the government's lawyers have likely taken one look at the guidance and said "this contravenes several human rights laws" - indeed, the European commissioner for human rights has read the interim guidance (notably, since rescinded, after numerous flaws and contradictions have been pointed out, and said, not on your nelly mate -https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/14/trans-people-risk-exclusion-many-uk-public-spaces-rights-expert-says - Dunt's full article on how the EHRC became "a culture war campaign group" is here and I would suggest is essential reading to anyone wishing to hear "the other side" of the debate - https://iandunt.substack.com/p/judgement-day-for-the-ehrc-c99
On a personal note, I respect Cyclefree a great deal and she provides a clear female voice on a forum generally dominated by men. That is to be cherished, and valued. However, she is a talented writer who has the ability to present *opinion* dressed up in the language of fact. As I say the links I have provided above will provide you with much more detailed takes on the EHRC which take the same source material, and present them in a very different way.
On the subject of trans people attacking gender critical conferences and the like, I will simply say that this is a tiny minority of very pissed off radicals, and does not reflect the views of any of trans people I know. It's akin to one Muslim being a jihadi and now every other Muslim has to put up with being called a terrorist. Cyclefree would like to paint a picture of all trans people being radical terrorists. My experience of them is that the vast majority don't care about politics - they just want to transition and "pass" so they can live their lives in peace without being hurled abuse at on the street.
I have said my piece, presented links that provide readers with further detail and alternative viewpoints, and will not be engaging further with this post.
I've also instructed ChatGBT to always say "I don't know" when it is not certain to help avoid hallucinations.
"The judgment does not by itself legally ban trans women from using women’s toilets across the board. But it means that under the Equality Act the term “woman” is defined by biological sex, and that gives legal cover for service providers to refuse access to a “women-only” space to someone assigned male at birth — provided the exclusion is lawful (legitimate aim + proportionate).
Because of the remaining grey areas (policy implementation, venue by venue decisions, human rights considerations) I must say: I don’t know exactly how this will play out in every scenario."
Thank you very much for this. I've learned something today.
I was clear on the implications of the SC judgement but I hadn't appreciated that the EHRC has used this opportunity to push forward far more prescriptive restrictions, not warranted by the law.
I can now see where @viewcode picked up his assertion.
The EHRC needs to be put back in their box.
- I and @Taz were referring to the actions of Lyndsay Watson, a trans woman and ex police officer, regarding several gender-critical activists. Ms Watson tweets/skeets[1] as "SEEN Police Official Open Public Network" and has been issuing threats/notifications to police forces that they should arrest those people or judicial review of their inaction would be sought. Which is why Linehan was arrested.
- This is a different case to the actions of Lindsey Smith, a gender-critical cis woman, regarding Northumbria Police attendance at Pride Marches, the links to which[2] you were so kind to provide.
NotesDr Helen Webberley
Gender doesn’t need your rules. It’s fluid, expressive, and beyond your control.
https://x.com/HelenWebberley/status/1984522545844879441
I'm not sure I've seen the relative rates of deaths and injuries for small boat crossings to the UK, it feels somewhat lower than the Med where I did see the stats and something around 1.5-2% of individual crossing attempts ended in death.
RIP.
https://x.com/iphillips79/status/1984596486294823066
It’s a hard one to reconcile. But the govt needs to grasp the nettle on the changes is bringing and radically downsizing our universities would be a good start.we don’t want 50% going to uni now. Not if there are no jobs or fewer jobs for them. It would also piss off the UCU so doubly worthwhile.
Gender may or may not be fluid or expressive. It may even be beyond control (whatever that means). But anyone wanting to live in our country still has to abide by its laws. The same laws they want to protect them. As individuals or organisations we can campaign against laws we don't agree with but also as individuals or organsiations we have no right to pick and choose which we obey. That, in the end, is the point of Cyclefree's piece.
If you want to incorporate my thoughts into a more cogent post of your own, by all means please do. You write well, and it would be great to see. I write what I do because my trans partner had her voice - and her life - snatched away from her at all too young an age. It is why I feel the need to post now, because I did not say enough, I did not speak out enough, when she was still alive. It also makes me quite emotive on this subject at times, which isn't always the best for objective writing.
I would consider writing a thread header on the trans issue at a later date if the mods were keen on it, perhaps once we've seen the final (not the interim) EHRC guidance that's been sent to Philipson, with an explainer on how we got here, at a later date. But for the moment, I feel like I'd just be re-writing/summarising Ian Dunt's journalism linked to above, with added invectives.
Otherwise, the risk of a nation of Prince Andrews looms.
In some respects ironically interest in degrees might expand, as if there are no jobs for half the population, degree or no degree, you may as well do some further study of interest to you to fill your extensive spare time
1) collapse of the recruitment system - garbage is overwhelming attempts by genuine candidates to find genuine employers and the other way.
2) incompetence has reached demented level. We have both a shortage of GPs and and over supply of qualified GPs.
3) the jobs AI is killing are middle management in offices (mainly).
4) in many other jobs, AI is a useful assistant which can increase productivity (coding for example)
5) all past increases in productivity have increased the number of jobs in the end.
6) there is no sign of so called AI becoming general. LLMs can’t do that.
7) we are in a bubble. The true cost of AI will be shown after the bubble.
8) we need different skills - a mix of physical skills *combined with* intellectual skills. Some of the apprenticeships are taking the right road on this. This country is dying of generalist management by people who literally hate “technical knowledge”
I don't need to speak for all women. The law is clear as is biology. Whatever people may choose to believe (see @kyf_100) no-one can change sex as a matter of fact. They can modify their body to what they would like to be & if that makes them (& those around them who care for them) happy, good luck to them. But it does not make them a member of the opposite sex - either in biology or in law.
Given that, the question to be addressed is how to deal with those people who are dysphoric. This is partly a matter of the appropriate care & how the law should deal with them. On the latter, the law has made gender reassignment a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, giving such people the same rights as other groups & allowed recognition of their position with the GRA. But neither the GRA nor the Equality Act ever gave - or were intended to give - such people the right to remove rights belonging to another group. And that is the point. Unisex facilities provide all the facilities necessary. Laws against discrimination do the same.
But what is being demanded is that women lose what they also need. What I find very odd & troubling is how so many men who claim - often loudly, aggressively & virulently - how they are women, demonstrate so little, zero, in fact, empathy for actual women & no understanding of why women might worry about having a large bloke watching them getting undressed. In fact the behaviour of so many of these is very very male - aggressively so.
I will leave you with this example. Hampstead & Highgate Ponds have 3 ponds: one for men only, one for women only & one for both men and women - unisex or, if you prefer, inclusive. Everyone - whatever sex or gender they were could get what they wanted. But no: the trans-identified men insisted on going into the women only pond so that there were now 3 ponds where men could swim but no pond where only women could go. Women lost out. Women were excluded. There was no need for this. It is hard to see this as anything other than a determination to take away what women want & need rather than a claim for something that trans people needed - because they already had that.
Trans people have not lost anything they were entitled to. They have lost what people told them wrongly they could have. They have all the rights that everyone else has. Losing something you are not entitled to is not oppression, no matter how much those who had a financial & other interest in lying about the law scream & shout about it.
All of this could have been avoided if (a) activists had concentrated on improving facilities & necessary care & (b) they had been much more rigorous & scrupulous in not inviting in all sorts of creeps, perverts & sexual offenders to shelter under the "trans" umbrella. It has done dysphoric people no good at all. I feel sorry for the latter group. But I have zero time for the former & those enabling them.
https://www.techsteel.net/xiaomis-100-autonomous-self-optimizing-factory-needs-almost-no-workers
So when you buy your new Chinese EV, remember this video from the Wall Street Journal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCBdcNA_FsI
We shouldn’t be scared of AI. It will change how things are done. But it should present opportunities too.
My old,job I had a quality manager who, whenever I raised a change request on our CAPA system put it into A.I. and it spat out the questions. Still needs someone at that level to review the answers.
Which is why I'm continually having to point out that the stuff people are telling me AI tells them to do is either out of date or about a different product to the one they actually use...
The Supreme Court judgement is indeed very clear & they repeat the same point a number of times: their judgement applies to the interpretation of terms within the Equality Act for the purposes of the legal interpretation of that Act alone. Para 2 of the judgement states explicitly:
“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.”
The SC has not, in fact, stated that sexual orientation is “based on sex, not certificates”: Cyclefree might very much wish that she could extend their judgement to the entirety of public life in this way, but the SC itself refutes her attempts to do so. The elision between these ideas in the work of someone who sets such pride in their precise legal judgement seems rather telling - Cyclefree writes about what she wants to be true rather than what is true. kyf_100’s comment that “she is a talented writer who has the ability to present *opinion* dressed up in the language of fact” seems to be to be (sadly) accurate.
Anyway they didn’t implement the law. Linehan was exonerated. No charges forthcoming.
The stupidity of the Republicans was to wind up the "Epstein file" into a piece of red meat they could deliver to MAGA. They might not have known of the reports of the photos of Trump in Epstein's safe. But Trump and perhaps some of those around him know what horrors await publication. They can bring down not just senior Republican figures and backers - but potentially even Trump himself.
The panic measure of closing down the House so that no vote can happen look to be the actions of people having no idea how to handle the problem. And now they have tens of millions of the poorest of Americans being deprived of the state support that feeds them, as fall-out from trying to keep this Epstein problem from being delivered ot the public domain. It is a problem just getting worse and worse.
Part 1.
Thank you for your considered response.
As I say below, I am labouring under the most frightful post-party hangover today, and when I say "I'm not engaging further with this debate" it's largely because I'm not firing on all thrusters and can't be as intellectually thorough as I would like, and as the debate deserves.
So I will try to respond to you as best I can, but please forgive me if my thoughts aren't as polished as I might like.
Something that may surprise you - I find much to agree with in your comment.
I shouldn't be allowed, for example, to stick a wig on, call myself a woman, and go waving my tallywhacker around the women's pond in Hampstead. Unfortunately a small, but very vocal minority, do want to argue this position. And they are wrong.
I am friends with a half dozen or so trans people, and through them I have met many more. A small number of whom, frankly I have gasped at in exasperation and thought - no you're not, you're a fetishistic man. This creates a problem - "good" transes and "bad" transes (like the "deserving" vs "undeserving" poor). How are we to determine which is which?
My view is that some common sense is needed. Fully transitioned women who have been on hormones for many years and had 'the snip' should be treated the same as any other woman in practice. I cannot imagine a scenario where a fetishistic man has his winkie cut off just so he can perv on ladies at the pond. However, it should be the right of any organisation to exclude whomever it wants. If I want to set up a private member's club for white, middle aged men called Geoff, and exclude all others - that is my right. A blanket law (as the EHCR) demands is the opposite - if a pond, members club, or pub wishes to allow trans women to use the facilities, it should be up to the individual institution.
(continued in part 2)
Transition, however, is a process. It took my partner ten years on the NHS from first diagnosis to getting 'the snip'. Full transition can be done privately in a year or two, but costs about £100k. This leaves an awful lot of people 'somewhere in the middle' where they pass fully (but still have a winkie while they're on the waiting list). And some, like an acquaintance of mine, who is devastatingly beautiful and utterly feminine - but is 6'4" - will always be visibly trans, even post-op.
I think the absolutist position to take is that you are only treated as a woman, with access to 'women only spaces' post op. And that is a reasonable, if extreme, position to take. The messy middle is that plenty of trans women 'pass' within a year or two but wait years on the NHS for the op. What do do with a woman who for all intents and purposes looks and acts exactly like any other woman (and thus would be endangered by being forced into male spaces, as the EHRC demandds), but is pre-op? And what to do with my friend who is 6'4 and would pass imperceptibly in women's spaces if she were only a foot shorter? Does she remain a "man" after she is post op? How do you account for these people while excluding the "blokes in wigs" types?
It is a messy business, and the messy compromise we've had for many years is that if you pass, you get to use women's spaces, and if you don't, you don't. This leads to the messy problem of passing privilege and what to do with the non-fetishistic, fully transitioned women who for various reasons (e.g. height) will never fully pass.
As you say, and I agree with you, sheltering the "creeps and pervs" under the trans umbrella does genuine trans women much harm - but there are plenty of edge cases where women are waiting years on the NHS waiting list, or even post-op, which will always be problematic.
The answer is a bit of kindness, and a bit of common sense.
The EHCR however have, for political reasons, decided to force through an extremist interpretation of a supreme court ruling which was never intended to be read in the way in which their guidance has been written. That is what I find unacceptable.
I can find no reliable statistics on the percentage of trans individuals who undergo surgery (and indeed no really reliable statistics on the number of transgender individuals).
Certainly opinion surveys (for what they are worth) seem indicate that a very large proportion do want surgery, and a rather smaller number are able to access it.
“At best cosmetic surgery” is opinion, at best.
https://www.indy100.com/politics/trump/trump-great-gatsby-halloween-party-mar-a-lago
Harry Potter held up an England try, then intercepted what looked like a pass for another try before running 80 metres to score
Eng 10 Aus 7 at halftime
I refer the honourable gentlemen, again, to the Supreme Court judgement: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_updated_16f5d72e76.pdf
Para 2: Cyclefree may (and probably does, I imagine!) wish that the SC judgement defines these terms for the purposes of public debate & for the interpretation of UK law more generally. The SC disagrees with her however.