“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
Trans men can use sex-neutral toilets like disabled etc toilets. Its really not that complicated.
I can't think of anywhere I've ever been in a long time that hasn't got sex-neutral toilets available.
No reason to make the whole women's toilets be compromised by men with penises to prevent a few individuals from using neutral facilities.
No, they can't. Disabled [sic] toilets are very often key-access only these days, to stop abuse and overuse by able people.
Not all disabilities are visible and if premises have an obligation to provide neutral facilities they either need to remove that key or offer it to anyone who requires it, such as an individual who needs the neutral facility, or produce extra facilities.
Perhaps you could make trans people wear an armband identifying themselves as trans, so that they can access key-entry loos?
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
That's literally what the Supreme Court said, yes.
Fortunately sex-neutral alternatives exist for the few individuals who can't use either main facility.
...unfortunately, the final guidance (recently leaked) states that sex-neutral alternatives need not be provided if the cost is prohibitive. So a woman who has had a sex-change and now looks like a man
I) cannot legally use the male toilet, because their birth sex is female Ii) cannot legally use the female toilet, because their appearance is male Iii) cannot legally use the sex-neutral or disabled toilet, because there isn't one
Without overtaxing my swiss-cheese memory overmuch, I can think of a Caffe Nero and another coffee shop in my town that is covered by this.
Same for disabled people though. That Cafe Nero should get its act together.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Under the SC ruling or the EHRC interim guidance (I forget which), it is specifically stated that female-to-male trans people who now look like men are forbidden from going into the men's toilet (because their birth sex is female) AND ALSO forbidden from going into the ladies' toilet (because their appearance may constitute a threat to the privacy/dignity/safety of women).
Is the toilet guidance envisaged to require active enforcement? Eg people whose job it is to police the facilities from a gender perspective?
Maybe we could re-employ all those diversity officers Cyclefree wants to sack.
House prices are too high because demand exceeds supply. Supply therefore needs to rise, ie build more. But private sector operators (quite rationally) won't do this because although for us, society, the economy, prices are too high and need to fall, for them prices are too low and need to rise in order to generate a satisfactory return over the cost of construction (given the low interest rate era is over and all the inflation we've had recently). That's the essential problem. The best way forward imo other than loosening planning regulation (which is needed) is direct government investment at scale. A major build programme of council/social housing. Break the impasse, stimulate the economy, solve the housing problem, in the longer term free up private resource for things more productive than residential property. Let's do that.
Private sector operators won't do that if there's no competition.
Private sector operators will do that if there's competition.
If anyone can build a home and make a profit, then better to make some profit than no profit and any skilled tradesperson could venture into construction.
In most countries with liberal planning laws houses are constructed more one at a time, rapidly and individually, by small firms. Not monolithic uniform blocs being controlled by housing behemoths.
I did cover that. Looser planning regs. It's part of the plan. An important part.
There is enormous building activity in my area (Brightwell, Oxfordshire) - various villages expecting double population, and the countryside rapidly diminishing. Obviously can't generalise but I guess that demand in specific areas is a factor too.
Personally I'd centralise regulations to avoid local vetoes and include multi-storey blocks (completely unknown around here).
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
Generally, men don’t care if a “trans man” (a woman dressing male) goes into the men’s room.
Go to any nightclub and you’ll find women dressed very much as women using the men’s room because they don’t have to queue.
Christ, not the gents in the nightclubs I've been to.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Under the SC ruling or the EHRC interim guidance (I forget which), it is specifically stated that female-to-male trans people who now look like men are forbidden from going into the men's toilet (because their birth sex is female) AND ALSO forbidden from going into the ladies' toilet (because their appearance may constitute a threat to the privacy/dignity/safety of women).
Is the toilet guidance envisaged to require active enforcement? Eg people whose job it is to police the facilities from a gender perspective?
Art becomes reality. I never thought Viz comic's "Bottom Inspectors" would ever become a salaried position.
Is this the Daily Express spinning against Labour or a genuine failure?
Absolutely damning new housing stats out this morning.
The number of net additional new dwellings during Labour's first year in office fell by 6% compared to the Tories.
The number of new builds fell by 8,000.
In total they oversaw just 190,000 new homes built in 24/25, suggesting they are seriously off course on their pledge to build 1.5m by the next election
It's so bad that the Tories managed to add 9,000 more additional homes *during the pandemic* than Angela Rayner managed during her time as Housing Secretary
Calgie say "built" not "starts" or "completions", which is meaningless, and since a house takes the best part of a year to build bearing in mind ground works etc, or at least 2-4 years if the whole process is taken into account, we just can't judge how much is the last Govt or this Govt.
And I'm not sure exactly what "start" means - presumably "commencement" under planning law.
OTOH we know that many of the processes towards building in London have been made much more constipated under this Govt for various "not joined up policy" reasons, so the pipeline in London will be constricted for some time.
Starts are also,down.
One big problem I have with Labour is they talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.
This govt has not helped but it’s also worth pointing out the last shambles also bear some blame.
This guy seems to have a good grasp of the situation. The market isn't conducive to housebuilding right now because financing for all capital projects has got a lot more expensive. To put it another way, housebuilders can't profitably build houses at prices people can afford to pay. The probable only way to break through this is if the government finances housebuilding directly, but it obviously doesn't want to take on even more debt.
They could if the cost of construction fell, which could easily happen by tackling the one artificially high cost that dominates . . . the cost of land.
The cost of land is artificially high because getting planning consent adds a 0 to the price of the land versus the exact same land without consent.
Revert back to our 1930s planning laws and we could lower the cost of land by roughly 90%, which would considerably lower the cost of construction, even without tackling any of the myriad of other costs that could also be tackled.
This is London, the issue isn’t the cost of land, a lot of it is building requirements such as second staircases that shift plans from achievable to not economically viable
According to the housing analyst I linked the issue fundamentally is financing costs. There are things you can do, some of which this government is doing relative to its predecessors, but these are at the margin. The only realistic way to unlock financing according to the analyst is if the government provides funding itself. Should it do so? The analyst implies, yes, but he will be seeing things from a housing perspective - the overall state of government finances isn't his concern.
The cost of financing is the one thing that has changed recently, and so that will look like the issue, but historically financing costs aren't that high, unless there's a specific issue with the capital market for housing that isn't functioning as well as it used to. Houses have been built at times of higher interest rates in the past, so there must be other issues that are different compared to then which are more fundamental.
I don't know the answer to that but I think the periods of big housebuilding in the twentieth century coincided with investment from government.
Private sector builders will build at the rate they can sell houses at, no quicker.
If sales on a site slow down then they will literally stop work on the site until sales pick up and it makes sense to finish the next set of houses.
If you want large house building you need the Government, housing associations or pension funds to start building. Personally I would be looking at how pension funds could build more rental properties
Why would pension funds optimise the delivery of housing, rather than maximising investment profit?
To increase home building, reduce costs and increase competition.
Don’t grant local monopolies to housing giants. Layout towns, and sell the plots for each street to different companies. This is what the Victorians did.
Bugger the Victorians - that's what the Scots did in the mid-18th century, with the New Town of Edinburgh, and (presumably) also the expansion of Glasgow westward from the mediaeval core.
Of course, they had planning systems and planning applications, including changes to existing buildings. And especially if they affected the neighbours! The records of the Dean of Guild Court in, for instance, Edinburgh are absolutely wonderful stuff, full of applications and drawings from the late C18 onwards.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Under the SC ruling or the EHRC interim guidance (I forget which), it is specifically stated that female-to-male trans people who now look like men are forbidden from going into the men's toilet (because their birth sex is female) AND ALSO forbidden from going into the ladies' toilet (because their appearance may constitute a threat to the privacy/dignity/safety of women).
Is the toilet guidance envisaged to require active enforcement? Eg people whose job it is to police the facilities from a gender perspective?
Formal enforcement occurs when a person sues the toilet provider for a breach of their safety/privacy/dignity. This breach is defined in the SC ruling and an example of that enforcement on those grounds is currently underway in the Leonardo case (@Cyclefree mentioned it: I forget its full title, apologies). Although that specific case is against an employer and by a woman against a trans woman, I assume the same remedy is available to non-employers and on other cis-v-trans combinations.
Informal enforcement may also take place in the usual manner: a breach of the peace resulting in intervention by security staff/police. But that is dependent on the mores of the time and place.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are on the cusp of dividing Europe between themselves and we are more concerned by a drag queen using a WC signposted with a skirt. Maybe that is where the toilet police are going wrong.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
Generally, men don’t care if a “trans man” (a woman dressing male) goes into the men’s room.
Go to any nightclub and you’ll find women dressed very much as women using the men’s room because they don’t have to queue.
Oh, good God, not this again. I've generally avoided this discussion but for once here's my take:
1) Anybody may use the men's loos because, as you say, men generally don't care.
2) People lacking a penis (whether biologically female/intersex, following operation or due to accident) may, if they choose, use the women's loos.
3) To be policed by common sense, that is, not policed at all unless a specific and credible complaint is made.
The Russians bombed an apartment building several hundred km from the front line of the war.
What are your thoughts on, and I don't want to influence you in any way, Witkoft's f*****' abomination of a peace plan?
I don’t hold it against Witkoff for talking to both sides in a war his boss wants to end, but it’s as much of a f*******abomination of a “peace plan”, as the last f****** abomination of a “peace plan” the Russians proposed.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
Generally, men don’t care if a “trans man” (a woman dressing male) goes into the men’s room.
Go to any nightclub and you’ll find women dressed very much as women using the men’s room because they don’t have to queue.
Christ, not the gents in the nightclubs I've been to.
Feck knows what kind of dodgy joints he is going to , never seen a woman in Gents in my puff.
The Russians bombed an apartment building several hundred km from the front line of the war.
Our homes for Ukraine lodger in 2022 was from Ternopil. It was bombed back then when she was with us too. The randomness in those non front line cities makes it even more frightening for the residents I think.
The Russians bombed an apartment building several hundred km from the front line of the war.
What are your thoughts on, and I don't want to influence you in any way, Witkoft's f*****' abomination of a peace plan?
I don’t hold it against Witkoff for talking to both sides in a war his boss wants to end, but it’s as much of a f*******abomination of a “peace plan”, as the last f****** abomination of a “peace plan” the Russians proposed.
Er, hadn't Witkoft agreed this unilaterally with Russia (although Russia deny any negotiation) and then proposed the plan to Ukraine?
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
Generally, men don’t care if a “trans man” (a woman dressing male) goes into the men’s room.
Go to any nightclub and you’ll find women dressed very much as women using the men’s room because they don’t have to queue.
Christ, not the gents in the nightclubs I've been to.
Feck knows what kind of dodgy joints he is going to , never seen a woman in Gents in my puff.
Back in my youth in 1980s Birmingham, it was quite normal in nightclubs for women to start using the men's loos when the queues for the women's got too long, which they invariably did. Nobody seemed particularly bothered by it, though there was a certain amount of grumbling by the ladies about the insufficient provision.
The Russians bombed an apartment building several hundred km from the front line of the war.
What are your thoughts on, and I don't want to influence you in any way, Witkoft's f*****' abomination of a peace plan?
I don’t hold it against Witkoff for talking to both sides in a war his boss wants to end, but it’s as much of a f*******abomination of a “peace plan”, as the last f****** abomination of a “peace plan” the Russians proposed.
Er, hadn't Witkoft agreed this unilaterally with Russia (although Russia deny any negotiation) and then proposed the plan to Ukraine?
Witless just took Russia's demands, worked out the grift for Trump and presented it as a deal, you could not make it up if you tried.
On your housing problem: May I recommend -- half jokingly -- a successful American solution.
Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin, and lived in a series of them while he was growing up. The last one held 8 people in a single room: Lincoln himself, his father Tom, his older sister, his stepmother, her three children, and an unrelated teenage boy, who needed some place to stay. Tom, who was a skilled carpenter, had built it, with help from his family and, no doubt, neighbors, by hand.
They would have worked quickly, because prior to the cabin being built, it was common for families to sleep together in lean tos.
Lincoln seems to have come out of that experience quite well. And, for those who care about such things, I'll observe that a log cabin is a good storage place for carbon.
Wow. Looks like Sir Keir has even lost Martin Kettle, once the patron saint of Starmerite centrist dads.
Starmer’s modern Labour party cannot agree about doing anything big, radical or different in domestic policy. Since it cannot agree, it is unable to govern well. It is not up to the job ... Today, Labour expends a lot of effort trying to capture working-class Reform supporters. Yet it spends far less trying to retain the support of its middle-class progressive electorate – and indeed seems to enjoy berating them. When a party like this faces in too many directions at the same time, it seems sensible to ask: what, today, is the point of Labour?
The PB demographic has a disproportionate number of people inclined towards the categorisation/systematisation end of things - categorising trains, constituencies, bets, cabinet ministers, etc.
So the, "trans women are women," rallying call was always going to make waves on PB.com, because it's messing with the categories.
Wow. Looks like Sir Keir has even lost Martin Kettle, once the patron saint of Starmerite centrist dads.
Starmer’s modern Labour party cannot agree about doing anything big, radical or different in domestic policy. Since it cannot agree, it is unable to govern well. It is not up to the job ... Today, Labour expends a lot of effort trying to capture working-class Reform supporters. Yet it spends far less trying to retain the support of its middle-class progressive electorate – and indeed seems to enjoy berating them. When a party like this faces in too many directions at the same time, it seems sensible to ask: what, today, is the point of Labour?
Wow. Looks like Sir Keir has even lost Martin Kettle, once the patron saint of Starmerite centrist dads.
Starmer’s modern Labour party cannot agree about doing anything big, radical or different in domestic policy. Since it cannot agree, it is unable to govern well. It is not up to the job ... Today, Labour expends a lot of effort trying to capture working-class Reform supporters. Yet it spends far less trying to retain the support of its middle-class progressive electorate – and indeed seems to enjoy berating them. When a party like this faces in too many directions at the same time, it seems sensible to ask: what, today, is the point of Labour?
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
This is precisely in line with the SC judgment. It arises because of the very serious effects which testosterone has on a female body. The judgment makes it clear that service providers should provide unisex facilities (they can be called trans inclusive facilities - they are one and the same). So no-one is banned from using the loo. They just need to use the correct one.
It is ironic that a movement which thinks that a man putting on a bit of lipstick and a skirt makes him a woman should now complain about being judged on their appearance.
Wow. Looks like Sir Keir has even lost Martin Kettle, once the patron saint of Starmerite centrist dads.
Starmer’s modern Labour party cannot agree about doing anything big, radical or different in domestic policy. Since it cannot agree, it is unable to govern well. It is not up to the job ... Today, Labour expends a lot of effort trying to capture working-class Reform supporters. Yet it spends far less trying to retain the support of its middle-class progressive electorate – and indeed seems to enjoy berating them. When a party like this faces in too many directions at the same time, it seems sensible to ask: what, today, is the point of Labour?
On your housing problem: May I recommend -- half jokingly -- a successful American solution.
Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin, and lived in a series of them while he was growing up. The last one held 8 people in a single room: Lincoln himself, his father Tom, his older sister, his stepmother, her three children, and an unrelated teenage boy, who needed some place to stay. Tom, who was a skilled carpenter, had built it, with help from his family and, no doubt, neighbors, by hand.
They would have worked quickly, because prior to the cabin being built, it was common for families to sleep together in lean tos.
Lincoln seems to have come out of that experience quite well. And, for those who care about such things, I'll observe that a log cabin is a good storage place for carbon.
However planning regs considerably restrict them (and conventional houses) being built on land without planning permission, and banks are reluctant to grant mortgages on them.
Correction: 50% of Pick My Postcode lottery players want Zack Polanski or Nigel Farage to be prime minister.
"Is Find Out Now accredited?
Find Out Now is a member of the British Polling Council and Market Research Society, and abide by their rules. As part of these rules, if a client publishes the results of a UK social or political survey in the public realm, Find Out Now are obliged to publish the full data tables of that specific survey within 2 working days."
The PB demographic has a disproportionate number of people inclined towards the categorisation/systematisation end of things - categorising trains, constituencies, bets, cabinet ministers, etc.
So the, "trans women are women," rallying call was always going to make waves on PB.com, because it's messing with the categories.
Not quite. 'Trans women are women' is a categorisation. The other, fluffier view, might be 'trans women are sometimes women'. or 'trans women are often but not always trans women'.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Under the SC ruling or the EHRC interim guidance (I forget which), it is specifically stated that female-to-male trans people who now look like men are forbidden from going into the men's toilet (because their birth sex is female) AND ALSO forbidden from going into the ladies' toilet (because their appearance may constitute a threat to the privacy/dignity/safety of women).
You have left out the important bit. The judgment goes on to say expressly that service providers must provide alternative unisex facilities or a closed single user cubicle so that such people are NOT left without facilities at all.
Wow. Looks like Sir Keir has even lost Martin Kettle, once the patron saint of Starmerite centrist dads.
Starmer’s modern Labour party cannot agree about doing anything big, radical or different in domestic policy. Since it cannot agree, it is unable to govern well. It is not up to the job ... Today, Labour expends a lot of effort trying to capture working-class Reform supporters. Yet it spends far less trying to retain the support of its middle-class progressive electorate – and indeed seems to enjoy berating them. When a party like this faces in too many directions at the same time, it seems sensible to ask: what, today, is the point of Labour?
The Labour Party was set up precisely to help working-class voters, not middle-class ones.
Kettle is right about Labour.
Neither Labour nor Conservatives have an ideology. Neither have anything to say. They both operate in a vacuum, so we are now reliant on racist, populist, opportunist grifters to fill that vacuum.
Correction: 50% of Pick My Postcode lottery players want Zack Polanski or Nigel Farage to be prime minister.
"Is Find Out Now accredited?
Find Out Now is a member of the British Polling Council and Market Research Society, and abide by their rules. As part of these rules, if a client publishes the results of a UK social or political survey in the public realm, Find Out Now are obliged to publish the full data tables of that specific survey within 2 working days."
They acknowledge having a different method of assembling the gang of responders, (a bit closer to asking down the pub) and a different way of crunching the raw data (non voters will vote in numbers this time). No-one will have any idea which teams are best except by evaluating polling and crunching immediately before actual elections.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
This is precisely in line with the SC judgment. It arises because of the very serious effects which testosterone has on a female body. The judgment makes it clear that service providers should provide unisex facilities (they can be called trans inclusive facilities - they are one and the same). So no-one is banned from using the loo. They just need to use the correct one.
It is ironic that a movement which thinks that a man putting on a bit of lipstick and a skirt makes him a woman should now complain about being judged on their appearance.
The words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind.
Save those words and remember them when you, or or one of your friends, gets hauled out of a loo or dressing room by a burly 6ft male security guard for not looking female enough.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
That's literally what the Supreme Court said, yes.
Fortunately sex-neutral alternatives exist for the few individuals who can't use either main facility.
...unfortunately, the final guidance (recently leaked) states that sex-neutral alternatives need not be provided if the cost is prohibitive. So a woman who has had a sex-change and now looks like a man
I) cannot legally use the male toilet, because their birth sex is female Ii) cannot legally use the female toilet, because their appearance is male Iii) cannot legally use the sex-neutral or disabled toilet, because there isn't one
Without overtaxing my swiss-cheese memory overmuch, I can think of a Caffe Nero and another coffee shop in my town that is covered by this.
Guidance does not and cannot change the law. A service provider doing this risks a discrimination claim. The law is clear and any service provider who does not get proper legal advice, if unsure, on what the judgment says.
Single use cubicles are the answer and plenty of Caffè Nero and other small cafes do precisely this - have one closed bathroom with basin, changing facilities etc - for use by everyone. Since this has been the law since 2010 I have little sympathy for those who still do not understand after 15 years, let alone for big chains like Caffè Nero who are well able to get proper advice on the law. If they chose instead to take advice from lobby groups instead of lawyers who understood the law, too bad. It will teach them an expensive lesson not to listen to snake oil merchants but to listen to experts.
Whenever we get into the FON debate I always flag that they were one of the closest to getting the REF share right in the previous local elections.
Does that mean I hold them up as gospel? No. But I don’t discount them entirely. Same as any pollster. YouGov has been showing lower REF share for months now. It’s a data point, I’m not ruling it out either.
Whenever we get into the FON debate I always flag that they were one of the closest to getting the REF share right in the previous local elections.
Does that mean I hold them up as gospel? No. But I don’t discount them entirely. Same as any pollster. YouGov has been showing lower REF share for months now. It’s a data point, I’m not ruling it out either.
On the other hand didn't FoN get other metrics very wrong?
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Under the SC ruling or the EHRC interim guidance (I forget which), it is specifically stated that female-to-male trans people who now look like men are forbidden from going into the men's toilet (because their birth sex is female) AND ALSO forbidden from going into the ladies' toilet (because their appearance may constitute a threat to the privacy/dignity/safety of women).
Is the toilet guidance envisaged to require active enforcement? Eg people whose job it is to police the facilities from a gender perspective?
No. It means that service providers cannot authorise people to use the wrong facility. It does not mean that they have to ensure 100% enforcement. But in any event social conventions which is really what this law embodies are generally pretty well policed by people themselves - women who will feel able to challenge without being accused o every kind of crime etc - and, frankly, men who are trans identified who I will assume are willing to comply with he law.
Or do you assume that such men must automatically be assumed to be law-breakers?
The Russians bombed an apartment building several hundred km from the front line of the war.
What are your thoughts on, and I don't want to influence you in any way, Witkoft's f*****' abomination of a peace plan?
I don’t hold it against Witkoff for talking to both sides in a war his boss wants to end, but it’s as much of a f*******abomination of a “peace plan”, as the last f****** abomination of a “peace plan” the Russians proposed.
Er, hadn't Witkoft agreed this unilaterally with Russia (although Russia deny any negotiation) and then proposed the plan to Ukraine?
Witkoff’s job is to shuttle between both sides, he’s presented the Russian position to the Ukranians and Zelenskyy couldn’t even be bothered with the meeting.
Which tells the Americans that they need to work on the Russian position, because it’s not even worth talking about with Ukraine and their European allies.
On polling generally, it feels like the CON-to-REF attrition has stopped at least for the time being. That’s lead to both parties plateau-ing. Time will tell if that process will start up again but for now it feels like the Tories might just have found their floor?
Weirdly if I were a Tory strategist I might be feeling slightly more optimistic than Labour right now. Their polling plunge seems to be bottoming out. Labour are now on similar shares but seem to be at greater risk of further attrition to the Greens.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
Trans men can use sex-neutral toilets like disabled etc toilets. Its really not that complicated.
I can't think of anywhere I've ever been in a long time that hasn't got sex-neutral toilets available.
No reason to make the whole women's toilets be compromised by men with penises to prevent a few individuals from using neutral facilities.
No, they can't. Disabled [sic] toilets are very often key-access only these days, to stop abuse and overuse by able people.
Not all disabilities are visible and if premises have an obligation to provide neutral facilities they either need to remove that key or offer it to anyone who requires it, such as an individual who needs the neutral facility, or produce extra facilities.
Perhaps you could make trans people wear an armband identifying themselves as trans, so that they can access key-entry loos?
Or identifying tattoos?
Where have I seen this caper before?
You and @TimS should stop being so bloody silly and grow up. Women are entitled to dignity, privacy and security and men who don't recognise that are precisely the problem and the reason why they need such security.
The Russians bombed an apartment building several hundred km from the front line of the war.
What are your thoughts on, and I don't want to influence you in any way, Witkoft's f*****' abomination of a peace plan?
I don’t hold it against Witkoff for talking to both sides in a war his boss wants to end, but it’s as much of a f*******abomination of a “peace plan”, as the last f****** abomination of a “peace plan” the Russians proposed.
Er, hadn't Witkoft agreed this unilaterally with Russia (although Russia deny any negotiation) and then proposed the plan to Ukraine?
Witkoff’s job is to shuttle between both sides, he’s presented the Russian position to the Ukranians and Zelenskyy couldn’t even be bothered with the meeting.
Which tells the Americans that they need to work in the Russian position, because it’s not even worth talking about with Ukraine and their European allies.
So why does he come up with the same unacceptable rubbish every time? Time to tell Putin how the land lies. That might get Trump his Nobel Peace Prize.
Redwire has been awarded a $44 million phase 2 contract to advance @DARPA's Otter Very Low Earth Orbit (VLEO) mission, which will demonstrate the world’s first air-breathing spacecraft and advance next-generation orbital capabilities using the company's cutting-edge SabreSat platform. 🛰️
“VLEO represents an exciting new frontier for defense, intelligence, and communications missions. Through our work with DARPA, we are accelerating the development of cutting-edge capabilities that will define the future of this domain,” said Tom Campbell, President, Space Missions at Redwire. “With Otter and our SabreSat platform, we are delivering higher-performance missions at lower altitudes: improving sensor perception and proximity to targets of interest, increasing revisit, reducing latency, and redefining mission resilience.” https://x.com/RedwireSpace/status/1991123064860406036
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
This is precisely in line with the SC judgment. It arises because of the very serious effects which testosterone has on a female body. The judgment makes it clear that service providers should provide unisex facilities (they can be called trans inclusive facilities - they are one and the same). So no-one is banned from using the loo. They just need to use the correct one.
It is ironic that a movement which thinks that a man putting on a bit of lipstick and a skirt makes him a woman should now complain about being judged on their appearance.
The words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind.
Save those words and remember them when you, or or one of your friends, gets hauled out of a loo or dressing room by a burly 6ft male security guard for not looking female enough.
I can assure you that women know exactly who is a woman and who isn't.
I am quite sure that the 12 year old girl sexually assaulted by a 6ft 2 trans identified man in a loo in Scotland would have liked a burly security guard to have hauled him out before he assaulted her.
All those who enabled and justified men like him to breach women's boundaries and assault or scare them should be hanging their heads in shame not lecturing those who stand up for women's rights.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Under the SC ruling or the EHRC interim guidance (I forget which), it is specifically stated that female-to-male trans people who now look like men are forbidden from going into the men's toilet (because their birth sex is female) AND ALSO forbidden from going into the ladies' toilet (because their appearance may constitute a threat to the privacy/dignity/safety of women).
Is the toilet guidance envisaged to require active enforcement? Eg people whose job it is to police the facilities from a gender perspective?
No. It means that service providers cannot authorise people to use the wrong facility. It does not mean that they have to ensure 100% enforcement. But in any event social conventions which is really what this law embodies are generally pretty well policed by people themselves - women who will feel able to challenge without being accused o every kind of crime etc - and, frankly, men who are trans identified who I will assume are willing to comply with he law.
Or do you assume that such men must automatically be assumed to be law-breakers?
If you zoom out and take a 100ft view, the actual problem is only a few hundred men in a population of 70m who see transgenderism as a fetish, and who get off on making women feel uncomfortable.
Unfortunately, these few hundred fetishists have got “liberal” friends in places like Stonewall and across the public sector, who are convinced that the fetishists are people with gender dismorphia rather than people with a perverted kink.
Lock up those few hundred men, and life is made easier for tens of thousands of women.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
Trans men can use sex-neutral toilets like disabled etc toilets. Its really not that complicated.
I can't think of anywhere I've ever been in a long time that hasn't got sex-neutral toilets available.
No reason to make the whole women's toilets be compromised by men with penises to prevent a few individuals from using neutral facilities.
No, they can't. Disabled [sic] toilets are very often key-access only these days, to stop abuse and overuse by able people.
Not all disabilities are visible and if premises have an obligation to provide neutral facilities they either need to remove that key or offer it to anyone who requires it, such as an individual who needs the neutral facility, or produce extra facilities.
Perhaps you could make trans people wear an armband identifying themselves as trans, so that they can access key-entry loos?
Or identifying tattoos?
Where have I seen this caper before?
You and @TimS should stop being so bloody silly and grow up. Women are entitled to dignity, privacy and security and men who don't recognise that are precisely the problem and the reason why they need such security.
Of course women are entitled to dignity. I have every sympathy with an invasion of your space by anyone who you consider threatens you.
Surely however there should be a differentiation between Andrew Burns, Andrew Miller and someone genuinely transitioning.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Under the SC ruling or the EHRC interim guidance (I forget which), it is specifically stated that female-to-male trans people who now look like men are forbidden from going into the men's toilet (because their birth sex is female) AND ALSO forbidden from going into the ladies' toilet (because their appearance may constitute a threat to the privacy/dignity/safety of women).
You have left out the important bit. The judgment goes on to say expressly that service providers must provide alternative unisex facilities or a closed single user cubicle so that such people are NOT left without facilities at all.
That is true of the SC judgement and (if memory serves) also true of the EHRC interim guidance, *but* the EHRC final guidance has been leaked and according to online gossip it now allows providers to not provide a unisex alternative if it's too expensive. I have not read the leaked final guidance and I am happy to be corrected if wrong.
On polling generally, it feels like the CON-to-REF attrition has stopped at least for the time being. That’s lead to both parties plateau-ing. Time will tell if that process will start up again but for now it feels like the Tories might just have found their floor?
Weirdly if I were a Tory strategist I might be feeling slightly more optimistic than Labour right now. Their polling plunge seems to be bottoming out. Labour are now on similar shares but seem to be at greater risk of further attrition to the Greens.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Under the SC ruling or the EHRC interim guidance (I forget which), it is specifically stated that female-to-male trans people who now look like men are forbidden from going into the men's toilet (because their birth sex is female) AND ALSO forbidden from going into the ladies' toilet (because their appearance may constitute a threat to the privacy/dignity/safety of women).
You have left out the important bit. The judgment goes on to say expressly that service providers must provide alternative unisex facilities or a closed single user cubicle so that such people are NOT left without facilities at all.
Does it ? I was unable to find that in it.
The EHRC interim guidance said that, and has now been withdrawn.
Correction: 50% of Pick My Postcode lottery players want Zack Polanski or Nigel Farage to be prime minister.
"Is Find Out Now accredited?
Find Out Now is a member of the British Polling Council and Market Research Society, and abide by their rules. As part of these rules, if a client publishes the results of a UK social or political survey in the public realm, Find Out Now are obliged to publish the full data tables of that specific survey within 2 working days."
They acknowledge having a different method of assembling the gang of responders, (a bit closer to asking down the pub) and a different way of crunching the raw data (non voters will vote in numbers this time). No-one will have any idea which teams are best except by evaluating polling and crunching immediately before actual elections.
They've been ahead of the curve so far this year. Other pollsters ended up with figures they had first. That doesn't prove they're always right of course.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
This is precisely in line with the SC judgment. It arises because of the very serious effects which testosterone has on a female body. The judgment makes it clear that service providers should provide unisex facilities (they can be called trans inclusive facilities - they are one and the same). So no-one is banned from using the loo. They just need to use the correct one.
It is ironic that a movement which thinks that a man putting on a bit of lipstick and a skirt makes him a woman should now complain about being judged on their appearance.
The words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind.
Save those words and remember them when you, or or one of your friends, gets hauled out of a loo or dressing room by a burly 6ft male security guard for not looking female enough.
I can assure you that women know exactly who is a woman and who isn't.
I am quite sure that the 12 year old girl sexually assaulted by a 6ft 2 trans identified man in a loo in Scotland would have liked a burly security guard to have hauled him out before he assaulted her.
All those who enabled and justified men like him to breach women's boundaries and assault or scare them should be hanging their heads in shame not lecturing those who stand up for women's rights.
While I admire your confidence, we live in a world where women like Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are frequently accused of being men - the leading accuser, of course, being that Owens woman. So your statement that women always know is provably false. Women *do not* always know.
Besides, it doesn't even have to be women. A pissed up bloke who's had a few too many on a night out could see a woman entering the ladies', assume she's trans for whatever reason - butch, tall, short hair, wears a wig due to alopecia etc - then tell the doorman there's "one of them" in there. Who would then be hauled out of the loos by a man, on the word of a man, and because the leaked EHRC guidance allows discrimination on the basis of appearance, be literally manhandled out of the pub.
As I say, I'm not interested in trans rights at all today. I'm interested in the rights of cis women who don't meet arbitrary beauty standards who would be affected by the EHRC guidance if it becomes law.
The Russians bombed an apartment building several hundred km from the front line of the war.
What are your thoughts on, and I don't want to influence you in any way, Witkoft's f*****' abomination of a peace plan?
I don’t hold it against Witkoff for talking to both sides in a war his boss wants to end, but it’s as much of a f*******abomination of a “peace plan”, as the last f****** abomination of a “peace plan” the Russians proposed.
Er, hadn't Witkoft agreed this unilaterally with Russia (although Russia deny any negotiation) and then proposed the plan to Ukraine?
Witkoff’s job is to shuttle between both sides, he’s presented the Russian position to the Ukranians and Zelenskyy couldn’t even be bothered with the meeting.
Which tells the Americans that they need to work on the Russian position, because it’s not even worth talking about with Ukraine and their European allies.
Somehow I don't think that's the takeaway message the Americans (Trump, Witkoff) are going to come to.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
This is precisely in line with the SC judgment. It arises because of the very serious effects which testosterone has on a female body. The judgment makes it clear that service providers should provide unisex facilities (they can be called trans inclusive facilities - they are one and the same). So no-one is banned from using the loo. They just need to use the correct one.
It is ironic that a movement which thinks that a man putting on a bit of lipstick and a skirt makes him a woman should now complain about being judged on their appearance.
The words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind.
Save those words and remember them when you, or or one of your friends, gets hauled out of a loo or dressing room by a burly 6ft male security guard for not looking female enough.
I can assure you that women know exactly who is a woman and who isn't.
I am quite sure that the 12 year old girl sexually assaulted by a 6ft 2 trans identified man in a loo in Scotland would have liked a burly security guard to have hauled him out before he assaulted her.
All those who enabled and justified men like him to breach women's boundaries and assault or scare them should be hanging their heads in shame not lecturing those who stand up for women's rights.
While I admire your confidence, we live in a world where women like Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are frequently accused of being men - the leading accuser, of course, being that Owens woman. So your statement that women always know is provably false. Women *do not* always know.
Besides, it doesn't even have to be women. A pissed up bloke who's had a few too many on a night out could see a woman entering the ladies', assume she's trans for whatever reason - butch, tall, short hair, wears a wig due to alopecia etc - then tell the doorman there's "one of them" in there. Who would then be hauled out of the loos by a man, on the word of a man, and because the leaked EHRC guidance allows discrimination on the basis of appearance, be literally manhandled out of the pub.
As I say, I'm not interested in trans rights at all today. I'm interested in the rights of cis women who don't meet arbitrary beauty standards who would be affected by the EHRC guidance if it becomes law.
I take my guidance on this topic from women. Including my wife, mother, sister and friends. I have eyes and ears. The majority of British women when polled do not share Cyclefree’s very strong opinions on trans.
Just as Farage doesn’t speak for me because I’m white, or the SNP speak for all Scots because they have the word Scottish in their name, one poster on a forum doesn’t get to arrogate to herself the combined opinions of an entire sex.
If I found out yesterday that on June 1st 2024 my wife slept with my best mate, then remembered that I took the kids out for the day on June 1st 2025, and said today “oh charming, while I was taking the kids out for the day, my best mate was banging my missus” I don’t think it would be wrong for someone to point out the things happened in different years… but I’m not a Labour MP with devoted supporters I guess
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
That's literally what the Supreme Court said, yes.
Fortunately sex-neutral alternatives exist for the few individuals who can't use either main facility.
...unfortunately, the final guidance (recently leaked) states that sex-neutral alternatives need not be provided if the cost is prohibitive. So a woman who has had a sex-change and now looks like a man
I) cannot legally use the male toilet, because their birth sex is female Ii) cannot legally use the female toilet, because their appearance is male Iii) cannot legally use the sex-neutral or disabled toilet, because there isn't one
Without overtaxing my swiss-cheese memory overmuch, I can think of a Caffe Nero and another coffee shop in my town that is covered by this.
Guidance does not and cannot change the law. A service provider doing this risks a discrimination claim. The law is clear and any service provider who does not get proper legal advice, if unsure, on what the judgment says.
Single use cubicles are the answer and plenty of Caffè Nero and other small cafes do precisely this - have one closed bathroom with basin, changing facilities etc - for use by everyone. Since this has been the law since 2010 I have little sympathy for those who still do not understand after 15 years, let alone for big chains like Caffè Nero who are well able to get proper advice on the law. If they chose instead to take advice from lobby groups instead of lawyers who understood the law, too bad. It will teach them an expensive lesson not to listen to snake oil merchants but to listen to experts.
Debating hypothetical final guidance that may or may not have been accurately leaked feels futile but...I think that service providers are entitled to rely on guidance rather than the law. The alternative creates huge bureaucracy, with anyone who provides a toilet also requiring a lawyer to interpret the law for them.
If the guidance is as viewcode suggests it is, this will clearly lead to a different, but no less thorny, problem than the one that has caused this furore in the first place.
I’m surprised you aren’t hiding under the bedcovers in sheer embarrassment at the Wally you made of yourself earlier!
Doug's timeline was correct. Johnson's lockdown parties covering almost eighteen months of various lockdowns and this corresponds with Streeting's surgery.
You have been a consistent advocate that Starmer was guilty of breaching lockdown restrictions in Durham. Currygate also occured in April 2021. So if you still want to propose Starmer remains as guilty as hell you have to climb down over Streeting.
I’m surprised you aren’t hiding under the bedcovers in sheer embarrassment at the Wally you made of yourself earlier!
Doug's timeline was correct. Johnson's lockdown parties covering almost eighteen months of various lockdowns and this corresponds with Streeting's surgery.
You have been a consistent advocate that Starmer was guilty of breaching lockdown restrictions in Durham. Currygate also occured in April 2021. So if you still want to propose Starmer remains as guilty as hell you have to climb down over Streeting.
You’re not that stupid
20th May 2020 There was a party at Downing St 21st May 2021 Wes Streeting had surgery for Cancer 10th Jan 2022 it was revealed for the first time that the aforementioned lockdown breaking party took place 11th Jan 2022 Streeting tweets While Downing Street nursed their hangovers, on 21st May I went into hospital alone for major surgery to remove my kidney cancer. It was the loneliest I have ever felt in my life and worse for my family.
If anyone truly believes he was just talking in general terms about lockdown breaking parties, rather than that specific, revealed only yesterday lockdown breaking party, they are stark raving mad.
If I found out yesterday that on June 1st 2024 my wife slept with my best mate, then remembered that I took the kids out for the day on June 1st 2025, and said today “oh charming, while I was taking the kids out for the day, my best mate was banging my missus” I don’t think it would be wrong for someone to point out the things happened in different years… but I’m not a Labour MP with devoted supporters I guess
You're not wrong, but its also moot.
Which is a bigger deal, getting the date mixed up, or her banging your mate?
Mistakes happen. Affairs shouldn't. Same here, realistically. Yes he made a mistake, no its not really that relevant especially three years after the fact.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
This is precisely in line with the SC judgment. It arises because of the very serious effects which testosterone has on a female body. The judgment makes it clear that service providers should provide unisex facilities (they can be called trans inclusive facilities - they are one and the same). So no-one is banned from using the loo. They just need to use the correct one.
It is ironic that a movement which thinks that a man putting on a bit of lipstick and a skirt makes him a woman should now complain about being judged on their appearance.
The words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind.
Save those words and remember them when you, or or one of your friends, gets hauled out of a loo or dressing room by a burly 6ft male security guard for not looking female enough.
I can assure you that women know exactly who is a woman and who isn't.
I am quite sure that the 12 year old girl sexually assaulted by a 6ft 2 trans identified man in a loo in Scotland would have liked a burly security guard to have hauled him out before he assaulted her.
All those who enabled and justified men like him to breach women's boundaries and assault or scare them should be hanging their heads in shame not lecturing those who stand up for women's rights.
While I admire your confidence, we live in a world where women like Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are frequently accused of being men - the leading accuser, of course, being that Owens woman. So your statement that women always know is provably false. Women *do not* always know.
Besides, it doesn't even have to be women. A pissed up bloke who's had a few too many on a night out could see a woman entering the ladies', assume she's trans for whatever reason - butch, tall, short hair, wears a wig due to alopecia etc - then tell the doorman there's "one of them" in there. Who would then be hauled out of the loos by a man, on the word of a man, and because the leaked EHRC guidance allows discrimination on the basis of appearance, be literally manhandled out of the pub.
As I say, I'm not interested in trans rights at all today. I'm interested in the rights of cis women who don't meet arbitrary beauty standards who would be affected by the EHRC guidance if it becomes law.
The EHRC guidance is guidance on what the law already is, not what the law would become.
I’m surprised you aren’t hiding under the bedcovers in sheer embarrassment at the Wally you made of yourself earlier!
Doug's timeline was correct. Johnson's lockdown parties covering almost eighteen months of various lockdowns and this corresponds with Streeting's surgery.
You have been a consistent advocate that Starmer was guilty of breaching lockdown restrictions in Durham. Currygate also occured in April 2021. So if you still want to propose Starmer remains as guilty as hell you have to climb down over Streeting.
You’re not that stupid
20th May 2020 There was a party at Downing St 21st May 2021 Wes Streeting had surgery for Cancer 10th Jan 2022 it was revealed for the first time that the aforementioned lockdown breaking party took place 11th Jan 2022 Streeting tweets While Downing Street nursed their hangovers, on 21st May I went into hospital alone for major surgery to remove my kidney cancer. It was the loneliest I have ever felt in my life and worse for my family.
If anyone truly believes he was just talking in general terms about lockdown breaking parties, rather than that specific, revealed only yesterday lockdown breaking party, they are stark raving mad.
He just got the years mixed up
The April 2021 No. 10 party was revealed in the press on 13 Jan 2022, I believe. It is possible that Streeting already knew about that and so might have been thinking about it.
But, sure, it's possible he got the year confused. But if he did, fortunately the longevity of the illegal activity at No. 10 is such that his comments are still valid!
If you look at this and think the important point is Streeting getting the year confused in a tweet is the problem, rather than the mass and repeated breaking of rules by Johnson's staff, then I suggest you are making an embarrassment of yourself.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
That's literally what the Supreme Court said, yes.
Fortunately sex-neutral alternatives exist for the few individuals who can't use either main facility.
...unfortunately, the final guidance (recently leaked) states that sex-neutral alternatives need not be provided if the cost is prohibitive. So a woman who has had a sex-change and now looks like a man
I) cannot legally use the male toilet, because their birth sex is female Ii) cannot legally use the female toilet, because their appearance is male Iii) cannot legally use the sex-neutral or disabled toilet, because there isn't one
Without overtaxing my swiss-cheese memory overmuch, I can think of a Caffe Nero and another coffee shop in my town that is covered by this.
Guidance does not and cannot change the law. A service provider doing this risks a discrimination claim. The law is clear and any service provider who does not get proper legal advice, if unsure, on what the judgment says.
Single use cubicles are the answer and plenty of Caffè Nero and other small cafes do precisely this - have one closed bathroom with basin, changing facilities etc - for use by everyone. Since this has been the law since 2010 I have little sympathy for those who still do not understand after 15 years, let alone for big chains like Caffè Nero who are well able to get proper advice on the law. If they chose instead to take advice from lobby groups instead of lawyers who understood the law, too bad. It will teach them an expensive lesson not to listen to snake oil merchants but to listen to experts.
Can any of our AI wallahs comment on whether this is a real photo or not? One of the children seems to have a put ankle deep in the ground, for one thing.
There’s at least 20 reasons to say that’s an AI image.
Start with the lack of windows in the house on the left, and the kids ignoring the man in their own garden. And yes, one of the girls appears to be missing a foot.
There also appears to be a fence built across the path.
OK, so given that, why is Darren Grimes such a klutz at propaganda?
Now that this has gone through Reform Exposed (which is where I noticed it) it will be in media to some extent, directly from there or via one or two Youtube channels.
Here we all make our mistakes from time to time, but I don't think anyone on PB has that level of fopdoodlism.
Because all the parties are. They still haven't broken out of the mind-space that what they put out for a niche audience won't spread out into the general, more cynical realm. The web is the great message leveller.
It's a fair point about families being sent halfway across the country to be rehoused though. Here in N Essex we've a recently built estate where some of the houses have, apparently, been sold to London Boroughs for rehousing their residents. No-one, so far anyway, objects to that in itself. What is an issue is that pretty well all local employment is a car journey away. We've no station and only hourly buses.
What are the actual demographics of the dumped? Do we have any facts?
Not yet, brief discussion in the pub, but to date no-one seems very worried.
If I found out yesterday that on June 1st 2024 my wife slept with my best mate, then remembered that I took the kids out for the day on June 1st 2025, and said today “oh charming, while I was taking the kids out for the day, my best mate was banging my missus” I don’t think it would be wrong for someone to point out the things happened in different years… but I’m not a Labour MP with devoted supporters I guess
And if someone was still banging on about something you said several years after the fact?
I’m surprised you aren’t hiding under the bedcovers in sheer embarrassment at the Wally you made of yourself earlier!
Doug's timeline was correct. Johnson's lockdown parties covering almost eighteen months of various lockdowns and this corresponds with Streeting's surgery.
You have been a consistent advocate that Starmer was guilty of breaching lockdown restrictions in Durham. Currygate also occured in April 2021. So if you still want to propose Starmer remains as guilty as hell you have to climb down over Streeting.
You’re not that stupid
20th May 2020 There was a party at Downing St 21st May 2021 Wes Streeting had surgery for Cancer 10th Jan 2022 it was revealed for the first time that the aforementioned lockdown breaking party took place 11th Jan 2022 Streeting tweets While Downing Street nursed their hangovers, on 21st May I went into hospital alone for major surgery to remove my kidney cancer. It was the loneliest I have ever felt in my life and worse for my family.
If anyone truly believes he was just talking in general terms about lockdown breaking parties, rather than that specific, revealed only yesterday lockdown breaking party, they are stark raving mad.
He just got the years mixed up
The April 2021 No. 10 party was revealed in the press on 13 Jan 2022, I believe. It is possible that Streeting already knew about that and so might have been thinking about it.
But, sure, it's possible he got the year confused. But if he did, fortunately the longevity of the illegal activity at No. 10 is such that his comments are still valid!
If you look at this and think the important point is Streeting getting the year confused in a tweet is the problem, rather than the mass and repeated breaking of rules by Johnson's staff, then I suggest you are making an embarrassment of yourself.
He used something incorrectly to amplify his reaction, all I’m saying is he should own up or delete the tweet. It doesn’t necessarily make him a bad person.
I’m sure it will come up if he is in the running to officially replace Sir Keir, and he will admit his mistake
As for him reacting to something that he probably didn’t know about, rather than the main news item of the day… I doubt it somehow!
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
This is precisely in line with the SC judgment. It arises because of the very serious effects which testosterone has on a female body. The judgment makes it clear that service providers should provide unisex facilities (they can be called trans inclusive facilities - they are one and the same). So no-one is banned from using the loo. They just need to use the correct one.
It is ironic that a movement which thinks that a man putting on a bit of lipstick and a skirt makes him a woman should now complain about being judged on their appearance.
The words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind.
Save those words and remember them when you, or or one of your friends, gets hauled out of a loo or dressing room by a burly 6ft male security guard for not looking female enough.
I can assure you that women know exactly who is a woman and who isn't.
I am quite sure that the 12 year old girl sexually assaulted by a 6ft 2 trans identified man in a loo in Scotland would have liked a burly security guard to have hauled him out before he assaulted her.
All those who enabled and justified men like him to breach women's boundaries and assault or scare them should be hanging their heads in shame not lecturing those who stand up for women's rights.
While I admire your confidence, we live in a world where women like Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are frequently accused of being men - the leading accuser, of course, being that Owens woman. So your statement that women always know is provably false. Women *do not* always know.
Besides, it doesn't even have to be women. A pissed up bloke who's had a few too many on a night out could see a woman entering the ladies', assume she's trans for whatever reason - butch, tall, short hair, wears a wig due to alopecia etc - then tell the doorman there's "one of them" in there. Who would then be hauled out of the loos by a man, on the word of a man, and because the leaked EHRC guidance allows discrimination on the basis of appearance, be literally manhandled out of the pub.
As I say, I'm not interested in trans rights at all today. I'm interested in the rights of cis women who don't meet arbitrary beauty standards who would be affected by the EHRC guidance if it becomes law.
The EHRC guidance is guidance on what the law already is, not what the law would become.
Don't like the law? Campaign to change it.
I will remind you of those words when the ECtHR inevitably rules in favour of trans rights under articles 8 and 14. Until then - I have no particular interest in engaging with you further.
Cyclefree, for all we may disagree, is intelligent, thoughtful and well-read. I respect her, and I enjoy debating with her. I cannot say the same of you.
The Comey prosecution has become ever more bizarre. After the very unusual order to have all documentation from the Grand Jury released it has been established that the indictment put before the court was never passed by them. There were 3 charges on the draft indictment. The Grand Jury "no billed" the first charge. They indicated, by a very narrow majority that they would allow the remaining charges to proceed but a fresh indictment with those charges only was never put before them. This is incompetent. The Judge has demanded that he be addressed by the DoJ today at 5pm local time to explain how the indictment can proceed. The short answer is that it can't.
Lindsay Halligan, the interim US attorney appointed by Trump with no relevant experience, has completely screwed this up and the time bar for any new proceedings has now expired. She is in a world of trouble.
If it is dismissed then is it likely/certain to be dismissed with prejudice?
I think that is moot.
It is beyond the Statute of Limitations end date.
One reason they fooked up so badly was that they were right up against the deadline last time.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
That's literally what the Supreme Court said, yes.
Fortunately sex-neutral alternatives exist for the few individuals who can't use either main facility.
...unfortunately, the final guidance (recently leaked) states that sex-neutral alternatives need not be provided if the cost is prohibitive. So a woman who has had a sex-change and now looks like a man
I) cannot legally use the male toilet, because their birth sex is female Ii) cannot legally use the female toilet, because their appearance is male Iii) cannot legally use the sex-neutral or disabled toilet, because there isn't one
Without overtaxing my swiss-cheese memory overmuch, I can think of a Caffe Nero and another coffee shop in my town that is covered by this.
Same for disabled people though. That Cafe Nero should get its act together.
My gender-neutral hope is that, as a result of all this, national and local government will realise that toilet provision for disabled people is far from adequate.
You all know I've been after the Treasury Department's own Epstein file. It's a set of thousands of detailed bank records, a map of Epstein's financial network. Secretary Bessent is blocking its release – and he denies it's even something Treasury should be investigating.
“…will Sir Keir Starmer ensure the candidate for the by-election is from an all women shortlist.”
Seems like there would be an obvious route for Burnham in that case.
The header from @Cyclefree would be volcanic - I’m thinking Thera, maybe Deccan Traps?
Ha ha! There would not in fact be any sort of route for Burnham, no matter how much mascara he wears, because the Labour Party changed its own rules quietly and without fuss shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in April to state that only women - real ones - (not men claiming to be women) could be in all-women shortlists or other Labour Party positions reserved for women.
Other organisations bewailing how difficult it is to understand the judgment might learn from this.
That is the good news. Party in government understands the importance of complying with the law, even if some of its own Ministers say the opposite to the courts (yes, I'm looking at you Bridget Phillipson).
The bad news is that it opens the way for twits like Lucy Powell.
Has the Labour Party updated its own policy documents to say that men in dresses are not women?
They seem to be taking their own pretty time over updating the official government guidance on the subject.
Er ..... yes they are. Because they are cowards. Or they don't want to admit that the women who challenged them were right.
At any event, the guidance is not law and cannot change it, the judgment is clear, the law is effective now and has been in fact since 2010 and on toilets for years before that (since 1992) and quite a few bodies have started complying with it including, amusingly, NHS Fife, which is also spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money arguing the opposite.
Don't forget the trans men who now have to go into women's toilets, some of whom look exactly like cis men. I'm sure that will cause no problems whatsoever.
Men don’t care who goes in their toilets.
Cat Man was talking about trans men, people who were born female but now look male, going into women’s toilets.
And… Speak for yourself. I would be unnerved if a woman or someone presenting as a woman came into the men’s.
..The Times has been passed a copy of the final guidance, which aims to preserve the dignity and safety of women, by Whitehall figures who are concerned that Labour is deliberately delaying publication to avoid a potential political backlash...
..(the guidance) also states that transgender people could be barred from single-sex services even when their biological sex matches, such if a trans man, who is biologically female but is “perceived” as a man, attempted to use a women’s changing room. It says that they can be barred because they are likely to be seen by others as the opposite sex..
This is precisely in line with the SC judgment. It arises because of the very serious effects which testosterone has on a female body. The judgment makes it clear that service providers should provide unisex facilities (they can be called trans inclusive facilities - they are one and the same). So no-one is banned from using the loo. They just need to use the correct one.
It is ironic that a movement which thinks that a man putting on a bit of lipstick and a skirt makes him a woman should now complain about being judged on their appearance.
The words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind.
Save those words and remember them when you, or or one of your friends, gets hauled out of a loo or dressing room by a burly 6ft male security guard for not looking female enough.
I can assure you that women know exactly who is a woman and who isn't.
I am quite sure that the 12 year old girl sexually assaulted by a 6ft 2 trans identified man in a loo in Scotland would have liked a burly security guard to have hauled him out before he assaulted her.
All those who enabled and justified men like him to breach women's boundaries and assault or scare them should be hanging their heads in shame not lecturing those who stand up for women's rights.
While I admire your confidence, we live in a world where women like Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are frequently accused of being men - the leading accuser, of course, being that Owens woman. So your statement that women always know is provably false. Women *do not* always know.
Besides, it doesn't even have to be women. A pissed up bloke who's had a few too many on a night out could see a woman entering the ladies', assume she's trans for whatever reason - butch, tall, short hair, wears a wig due to alopecia etc - then tell the doorman there's "one of them" in there. Who would then be hauled out of the loos by a man, on the word of a man, and because the leaked EHRC guidance allows discrimination on the basis of appearance, be literally manhandled out of the pub.
As I say, I'm not interested in trans rights at all today. I'm interested in the rights of cis women who don't meet arbitrary beauty standards who would be affected by the EHRC guidance if it becomes law.
The EHRC guidance is guidance on what the law already is, not what the law would become.
Don't like the law? Campaign to change it.
I will remind you of those words when the ECtHR inevitably rules in favour of trans rights under articles 8 and 14. Until then - I have no particular interest in engaging with you further.
Cyclefree, for all we may disagree, is intelligent, thoughtful and well-read. I respect her, and I enjoy debating with her. I cannot say the same of you.
Bemusing way to try to get the last word in, to insult someone and say not worthy of a response, but to still respond anyway.
The Supreme Court has actually ruled on this matter. The ECtHR has not. Your fictional future ruling of the ECtHR has not happened and might never happen, meanwhile the Supreme Courts ruling actually has happened.
The law is what Parliament has passed, as ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Not anyone's fictional version of what the ECtHR might or might not say in the future.
Comments
Where have I seen this caper before?
Personally I'd centralise regulations to avoid local vetoes and include multi-storey blocks (completely unknown around here).
I prefer the obsession with trains tbh.
Christ it's boring.
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/1991493774036594729
The Russians bombed an apartment building several hundred km from the front line of the war.
Informal enforcement may also take place in the usual manner: a breach of the peace resulting in intervention by security staff/police. But that is dependent on the mores of the time and place.
https://www.youtube.com/@JenOnTheMove
Enjoy!
Clive Lewis seems a good judge of character.
1) Anybody may use the men's loos because, as you say, men generally don't care.
2) People lacking a penis (whether biologically female/intersex, following operation or due to accident) may, if they choose, use the women's loos.
3) To be policed by common sense, that is, not policed at all unless a specific and credible complaint is made.
There, I've said my bit. Now I'll shut up again.
Northern Ireland face Italy who, when Italy beat Northern Ireland, then face Wales after Wales beat Bosnia.
Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin, and lived in a series of them while he was growing up. The last one held 8 people in a single room: Lincoln himself, his father Tom, his older sister, his stepmother, her three children, and an unrelated teenage boy, who needed some place to stay. Tom, who was a skilled carpenter, had built it, with help from his family and, no doubt, neighbors, by hand.
They would have worked quickly, because prior to the cabin being built, it was common for families to sleep together in lean tos.
Lincoln seems to have come out of that experience quite well. And, for those who care about such things, I'll observe that a log cabin is a good storage place for carbon.
Starmer’s modern Labour party cannot agree about doing anything big, radical or different in domestic policy. Since it cannot agree, it is unable to govern well. It is not up to the job ... Today, Labour expends a lot of effort trying to capture working-class Reform supporters. Yet it spends far less trying to retain the support of its middle-class progressive electorate – and indeed seems to enjoy berating them. When a party like this faces in too many directions at the same time, it seems sensible to ask: what, today, is the point of Labour?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/20/labour-government-credibility-budget
So the, "trans women are women," rallying call was always going to make waves on PB.com, because it's messing with the categories.
It is ironic that a movement which thinks that a man putting on a bit of lipstick and a skirt makes him a woman should now complain about being judged on their appearance.
The words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind.
However planning regs considerably restrict them (and conventional houses) being built on land without planning permission, and banks are reluctant to grant mortgages on them.
Find Out Now is a member of the British Polling Council and Market Research Society, and abide by their rules. As part of these rules, if a client publishes the results of a UK social or political survey in the public realm, Find Out Now are obliged to publish the full data tables of that specific survey within 2 working days."
https://findoutnow.co.uk/faq#nationally-representative-polling
https://x.com/secduffy/status/1991129339291713790
Neither Labour nor Conservatives have an ideology. Neither have anything to say. They both operate in a vacuum, so we are now reliant on racist, populist, opportunist grifters to fill that vacuum.
Nathan Gill is sentenced tomorrow.
Single use cubicles are the answer and plenty of Caffè Nero and other small cafes do precisely this - have one closed bathroom with basin, changing facilities etc - for use by everyone. Since this has been the law since 2010 I have little sympathy for those who still do not understand after 15 years, let alone for big chains like Caffè Nero who are well able to get proper advice on the law. If they chose instead to take advice from lobby groups instead of lawyers who understood the law, too bad. It will teach them an expensive lesson not to listen to snake oil merchants but to listen to experts.
Does that mean I hold them up as gospel? No. But I don’t discount them entirely. Same as any pollster. YouGov has been showing lower REF share for months now. It’s a data point, I’m not ruling it out either.
Or do you assume that such men must automatically be assumed to be law-breakers?
Which tells the Americans that they need to work on the Russian position, because it’s not even worth talking about with Ukraine and their European allies.
Weirdly if I were a Tory strategist I might be feeling slightly more optimistic than Labour right now. Their polling plunge seems to be bottoming out. Labour are now on similar shares but seem to be at greater risk of further attrition to the Greens.
Redwire has been awarded a $44 million phase 2 contract to advance @DARPA's Otter Very Low Earth Orbit (VLEO) mission, which will demonstrate the world’s first air-breathing spacecraft and advance next-generation orbital capabilities using the company's cutting-edge SabreSat platform. 🛰️
“VLEO represents an exciting new frontier for defense, intelligence, and communications missions. Through our work with DARPA, we are accelerating the development of cutting-edge capabilities that will define the future of this domain,” said Tom Campbell, President, Space Missions at Redwire. “With Otter and our SabreSat platform, we are delivering higher-performance missions at lower altitudes: improving sensor perception and proximity to targets of interest, increasing revisit, reducing latency, and redefining mission resilience.”
https://x.com/RedwireSpace/status/1991123064860406036
I am quite sure that the 12 year old girl sexually assaulted by a 6ft 2 trans identified man in a loo in Scotland would have liked a burly security guard to have hauled him out before he assaulted her.
All those who enabled and justified men like him to breach women's boundaries and assault or scare them should be hanging their heads in shame not lecturing those who stand up for women's rights.
Unfortunately, these few hundred fetishists have got “liberal” friends in places like Stonewall and across the public sector, who are convinced that the fetishists are people with gender dismorphia rather than people with a perverted kink.
Lock up those few hundred men, and life is made easier for tens of thousands of women.
Surely however there should be a differentiation between Andrew Burns, Andrew Miller and someone genuinely transitioning.
The EHRC interim guidance said that, and has now been withdrawn.
"Sean’s boss called someone “PIGGY” on a plane just two days ago."
Besides, it doesn't even have to be women. A pissed up bloke who's had a few too many on a night out could see a woman entering the ladies', assume she's trans for whatever reason - butch, tall, short hair, wears a wig due to alopecia etc - then tell the doorman there's "one of them" in there. Who would then be hauled out of the loos by a man, on the word of a man, and because the leaked EHRC guidance allows discrimination on the basis of appearance, be literally manhandled out of the pub.
As I say, I'm not interested in trans rights at all today. I'm interested in the rights of cis women who don't meet arbitrary beauty standards who would be affected by the EHRC guidance if it becomes law.
https://x.com/TheDailyShow/status/1991295426041962802?s=20
Just as Farage doesn’t speak for me because I’m white, or the SNP speak for all Scots because they have the word Scottish in their name, one poster on a forum doesn’t get to arrogate to herself the combined opinions of an entire sex.
This one doesn’t have a title.
I don’t know who did this, but just know, that I think you’re a goddamn genius.
https://x.com/lisa_liberal/status/1991280198705377503?s=20
If the guidance is as viewcode suggests it is, this will clearly lead to a different, but no less thorny, problem than the one that has caused this furore in the first place.
You have been a consistent advocate that Starmer was guilty of breaching lockdown restrictions in Durham. Currygate also occured in April 2021. So if you still want to propose Starmer remains as guilty as hell you have to climb down over Streeting.
20th May 2020 There was a party at Downing St
21st May 2021 Wes Streeting had surgery for Cancer
10th Jan 2022 it was revealed for the first time that the aforementioned lockdown breaking party took place
11th Jan 2022 Streeting tweets While Downing Street nursed their hangovers, on 21st May I went into hospital alone for major surgery to remove my kidney cancer. It was the loneliest I have ever felt in my life and worse for my family.
If anyone truly believes he was just talking in general terms about lockdown breaking parties, rather than that specific, revealed only yesterday lockdown breaking party, they are stark raving mad.
He just got the years mixed up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY1N9sUqMow
And would be gratified that a suspect has been caught:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ella-mae-begay-missing-preston-henry-tolth-charged-navajo-nation-woman-disappeared-2021/
https://andrewspreviews.substack.com/p/previewing-the-seven-council-by-elections-6c5
Which is a bigger deal, getting the date mixed up, or her banging your mate?
Mistakes happen. Affairs shouldn't. Same here, realistically. Yes he made a mistake, no its not really that relevant especially three years after the fact.
Don't like the law? Campaign to change it.
But, sure, it's possible he got the year confused. But if he did, fortunately the longevity of the illegal activity at No. 10 is such that his comments are still valid!
If you look at this and think the important point is Streeting getting the year confused in a tweet is the problem, rather than the mass and repeated breaking of rules by Johnson's staff, then I suggest you are making an embarrassment of yourself.
Trump is now calling for the executions of Democratic veterans who reminded the military of their duty to disobey “ILLEGAL” orders.
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3m633jmalbk2w
I’m sure it will come up if he is in the running to officially replace Sir Keir, and he will admit his mistake
As for him reacting to something that he probably didn’t know about, rather than the main news item of the day… I doubt it somehow!
Cyclefree, for all we may disagree, is intelligent, thoughtful and well-read. I respect her, and I enjoy debating with her. I cannot say the same of you.
It is beyond the Statute of Limitations end date.
One reason they fooked up so badly was that they were right up against the deadline last time.
You all know I've been after the Treasury Department's own Epstein file. It's a set of thousands of detailed bank records, a map of Epstein's financial network. Secretary Bessent is blocking its release – and he denies it's even something Treasury should be investigating.
https://bsky.app/profile/wyden.senate.gov/post/3m633dahsac2l
The Supreme Court has actually ruled on this matter. The ECtHR has not. Your fictional future ruling of the ECtHR has not happened and might never happen, meanwhile the Supreme Courts ruling actually has happened.
The law is what Parliament has passed, as ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Not anyone's fictional version of what the ECtHR might or might not say in the future.