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.
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!
If you think this "will come up if he is in the running to officially replace Sir Keir", then I suggest, to quote someone, you "are stark raving mad".
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!
If you think this "will come up if he is in the running to officially replace Sir Keir", then I suggest, to quote someone, you "are stark raving mad".
It depends how you define "come up", you will probably get some people like isam commenting online about it.
You're not going to get anyone asking about it at a Labour Party hustings.
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.
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.
And they were right up against the deadline because all the sensible lawyers had looked at the situation and concluded that was nothing for Comey to answer for.
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.
I watched their video last night. It seemed very innocuous to me. However a foaming, rabid Stephen Miller was banging on about their treason on Fox or Newsmax (I can't remember which, they all merge into a vile word soup). Presumably Miller has had a word with Trump.
I am quite convinced executions of political opponents will happen as the Mad King gets madder, and the power behind the throne, Stephen Miller is already beyond morality.
I don’t think Streeting will be losing any sleep about mixing up some years in a tweet that accused the government of being insensitive and tone deaf around their behaviour in lockdown.
The government’s behaviour in lockdown was insensitive and tone deaf, and a main factor in why the Tories aren’t gently bumping along at around 10% higher in the polls right now, IMHO.
I, as you well know by now, is the future of everything – including, Microsoft has recently taken to informing users, malware installation. No, this is not a joke or a bit, but rather a glimmering new wing in the hallowed halls of “What are we even doing here?”
This week, Microsoft updated its support page on “Experimental Agentic Features” – user-like AI sidekicks that interact “with your apps and your files, using vision and advanced reasoning to click, type and scroll like a human would” – with the following warning:
Agentic AI has powerful capabilities today – for example, it can complete many complex tasks in response to user prompts, transforming how users interact with their PCs. As these capabilities are introduced, AI models still face functional limitations in terms of how they behave and occasionally may hallucinate and produce unexpected outputs. Additionally, agentic AI applications introduce novel security risks, such as cross-prompt injection (XPIA), where malicious content embedded in UI elements or documents can override agent instructions, leading to unintended actions like data exfiltration or malware installation.
“…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.
Not bureaucracy but lots of money for lawyers.
But basically I agree. Everyone is needing sensible and legal guidance and nobody wants to pay the bills charged by lawyers for every single case. It's arguably integral to seeing any significant legal change through. This is completely independent of what the law is (which many people confuse with what they think it should be, in my experience). And, of course, the customers/employees also need to know whatr to expect.
If this isn't the case, because the guidance isn't available (or even because it's impossible to make sense of the laws, which shouldn't be happening) then it's up to UKG to sort it out one way or another (given that it has taken it over from the devolved governments by Mr Jack's formal order).
I think of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. Needed particularly because one of the first actions of the restored Parliament was to clarify ands make firmly explicit the long-standing implicit rules of land access which were under attack by a special interest group and defended by others. Part of the result was to issue guidance for the public and landowners, in the form of the Code (can't remember if [edit] publishing a guide Code was actually specified in the relevant Act, but it could well have been). Sure, it's not a formal statement of the law in itself - but (a) it is a pretty good go while remaining in human-speak, (b) it says where to find more info if need be, and (c) in practice anyone deviating from the guidance is an immediate red flag, in itself, and this has at least sometimes led to the need to be asked to justify said deviation earlier on (e.g in a magistrate's court) while having much less excuse in terms of ignorance.
A further example - the change to half barrier railway level crossings in the 1960s. The interpretation of the change in regulations to the road users and the wider public through leaflets, etc., was a key issue in the inquiry into the Hixon disaster, as much as the regulations.
This is excellent as always. I'd never heard of that ferry disaster in 1953. And Cheshire East politics are fascinating.
The ferry disaster in which an MP died, leading to the 1953 North Down by-election... which was very boring as only the UUP stood and the candidate was elected unopposed.
It really is remarkable how badly the Lib Dems are doing. Their 'none of the above' vote obviously depended on 'the above' consisting of only Labour and the Tories.
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
Let it go. You’ve debased yourself enough with this already. You were wrong. Let it go.
I don't want to defend Boris Johnson but the COVID enquiry by Baroness Hallett is inconsistent with the reality of the moment. Without the benefit of hindsight Johnson called the lockdowns right.
It really is remarkable how badly the Lib Dems are doing. Their 'none of the above' vote obviously depended on 'the above' consisting of only Labour and the Tories.
Big G's seat prediction puts the LibDems up on seats and becoming the official opposition. That's not a bad result!
I don't want to defend Boris Johnson but the COVID enquiry by Baroness Hallett is inconsistent with the reality of the moment. Without the benefit of hindsight Johnson called the lockdowns right.
“…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.
As this is a matter of more than academic interest to my family, I had another look through the judgment. It must be the (withdrawn) guidance which said that, as the judgment, AFAICS, expressly does not say that at all.
We are agreed in saying that what the judgment does do is create a right to discriminate against a particular class (trans identifying individuals) in some circumstances. It goes on to say that those individuals have protected rights in employment law as trans identifying individuals, but expressly do not have such class rights outside of that sphere.
So setting aside the new, leaked guidance (the full text of which I can't find, and which in any event is guidance, rather than legal precedent), the law has created a class of citizens with fewer rights. We can differ on whether or not that is important, but that seems to be the clear implication of the Supreme Court judgment.
It really is remarkable how badly the Lib Dems are doing. Their 'none of the above' vote obviously depended on 'the above' consisting of only Labour and the Tories.
Big G's seat prediction puts the LibDems up on seats and becoming the official opposition. That's not a bad result!
“…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.
Can I make a suggestion? However tempted you might be, never represent yourself in court. Please.
I don't want to defend Boris Johnson but the COVID enquiry by Baroness Hallett is inconsistent with the reality of the moment. Without the benefit of hindsight Johnson called the lockdowns right.
"SAGE (the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) provided high-quality scientific advice at extreme pace, but the effectiveness of SAGE’s advice was constrained by various factors including a lack of clearly stated objectives by the UK government."
I watched their video last night. It seemed very innocuous to me. However a foaming, rabid Stephen Miller was banging on about their treason on Fox or Newsmax (I can't remember which, they all merge into a vile word soup). Presumably Miller has had a word with Trump.
I am quite convinced executions of political opponents will happen as the Mad King gets madder, and the power behind the throne, Stephen Miller is already beyond morality.
I'd be interested for them to state precisely which illegal orders they believe that the military shaped be obliged to follow. A couple of examples, at the very least.
I agree that the government dithered in the face of Covid and a lot of what followed on from there was avoidable. We can debate the causes of that.
But I also find it hard to believe that the British State would have ever been in a position to avoid lockdown completely. The demands of the public to “do something” to stop people dying, amplified by the incredibly pro-lockdown media narrative would have made that choice an exceptionally difficult one for a government to take. Perhaps the government should have been stronger and taken it anyway. But as with all things, hindsight.
Hallett has the benefit of hindsight. Johnson didn't.
He did have the benefit of lots of people around him telling him stuff.
Look, I was there, it was chaotic and difficult in the early months, and I'm happy to give Johnson et al. a fair bit of leeway, but he got the big calls wrong!
It really is remarkable how badly the Lib Dems are doing. Their 'none of the above' vote obviously depended on 'the above' consisting of only Labour and the Tories.
Big G's seat prediction puts the LibDems up on seats and becoming the official opposition. That's not a bad result!
Not my predictions but stats for lefties
If there were an election tomorrow I suspect 12 seats would be about a dozen more on the side of optimism than reality.
I agree that the government dithered in the face of Covid and a lot of what followed on from there was avoidable. We can debate the causes of that.
But I also find it hard to believe that the British State would have ever been in a position to avoid lockdown completely. The demands of the public to “do something” to stop people dying, amplified by the incredibly pro-lockdown media narrative would have made that choice an exceptionally difficult one for a government to take. Perhaps the government should have been stronger and taken it anyway. But as with all things, hindsight.
There were loud voices - both here and in the press - who thought we were unlocking too quickly.
“…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.
[Addendum: Apparently the final guidance uses the word "should" instead of the word "must".At least, according to the BBC. The BBC says that "...It adds that if a transgender person is excluded from a space, the organisation should consider alternatives and that it would not be proportionate to leave the person without essential services, such as toilets...The guidance acknowledges that providing alternatives may not always be possible due to space constraints or cost."]
[Addendum 2: The Times confirms this, stating that "...The guidance said that if transgender people are excluded from a space, organisations should consider whether there is a suitable alternative for them and that it would not be proportionate to leave them without essential services, such as access to lavatories...But it also outlines how in some cases that may not be possible owing to the physical constraints of buildings or high costs. It said: “It may be that offering alternative arrangements is not reasonably possible […] this may be because of the type of service being provided, the needs of the service users, the physical constraints of any building, or because of the disproportionate financial costs associated with making those arrangements”..."]
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
Let it go. You’ve debased yourself enough with this already. You were wrong. Let it go.
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.
Comments
You're not going to get anyone asking about it at a Labour Party hustings.
I am quite convinced executions of political opponents will happen as the Mad King gets madder, and the power behind the throne, Stephen Miller is already beyond morality.
The government’s behaviour in lockdown was insensitive and tone deaf, and a main factor in why the Tories aren’t gently bumping along at around 10% higher in the polls right now, IMHO.
I know this poll has been posted but Labour with just 12 seats - really?
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1991508310810640491?s=19
This week, Microsoft updated its support page on “Experimental Agentic Features” – user-like AI sidekicks that interact “with your apps and your files, using vision and advanced reasoning to click, type and scroll like a human would” – with the following warning:
Agentic AI has powerful capabilities today – for example, it can complete many complex tasks in response to user prompts, transforming how users interact with their PCs. As these capabilities are introduced, AI models still face functional limitations in terms of how they behave and occasionally may hallucinate and produce unexpected outputs. Additionally, agentic AI applications introduce novel security risks, such as cross-prompt injection (XPIA), where malicious content embedded in UI elements or documents can override agent instructions, leading to unintended actions like data exfiltration or malware installation.
https://aftermath.site/microsoft-windows-11-ai-agent-malware/
But basically I agree. Everyone is needing sensible and legal guidance and nobody wants to pay the bills charged by lawyers for every single case. It's arguably integral to seeing any significant legal change through. This is completely independent of what the law is (which many people confuse with what they think it should be, in my experience). And, of course, the customers/employees also need to know whatr to expect.
If this isn't the case, because the guidance isn't available (or even because it's impossible to make sense of the laws, which shouldn't be happening) then it's up to UKG to sort it out one way or another (given that it has taken it over from the devolved governments by Mr Jack's formal order).
I think of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. Needed particularly because one of the first actions of the restored Parliament was to clarify ands make firmly explicit the long-standing implicit rules of land access which were under attack by a special interest group and defended by others. Part of the result was to issue guidance for the public and landowners, in the form of the Code (can't remember if [edit] publishing a guide Code was actually specified in the relevant Act, but it could well have been). Sure, it's not a formal statement of the law in itself - but (a) it is a pretty good go while remaining in human-speak, (b) it says where to find more info if need be, and (c) in practice anyone deviating from the guidance is an immediate red flag, in itself, and this has at least sometimes led to the need to be asked to justify said deviation earlier on (e.g in a magistrate's court) while having much less excuse in terms of ignorance.
A further example - the change to half barrier railway level crossings in the 1960s. The interpretation of the change in regulations to the road users and the wider public through leaflets, etc., was a key issue in the inquiry into the Hixon disaster, as much as the regulations.
One of the most reassuringly consistent things about this board is your lack of self awareness and grasp of reality.
Breaking
All 4 governments condemned by Covid enquiry
23,000 lives could have been saved
It must be the (withdrawn) guidance which said that, as the judgment, AFAICS, expressly does not say that at all.
We are agreed in saying that what the judgment does do is create a right to discriminate against a particular class (trans identifying individuals) in some circumstances.
It goes on to say that those individuals have protected rights in employment law as trans identifying individuals, but expressly do not have such class rights outside of that sphere.
So setting aside the new, leaked guidance (the full text of which I can't find, and which in any event is guidance, rather than legal precedent), the law has created a class of citizens with fewer rights. We can differ on whether or not that is important, but that seems to be the clear implication of the Supreme Court judgment.
NEW THREAD
"SAGE (the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) provided high-quality scientific advice at extreme pace, but the effectiveness of SAGE’s advice was constrained by various factors including a lack of clearly stated objectives by the UK government."
Phew!
A couple of examples, at the very least.
But I also find it hard to believe that the British State would have ever been in a position to avoid lockdown completely. The demands of the public to “do something” to stop people dying, amplified by the incredibly pro-lockdown media narrative would have made that choice an exceptionally difficult one for a government to take. Perhaps the government should have been stronger and taken it anyway. But as with all things, hindsight.
Look, I was there, it was chaotic and difficult in the early months, and I'm happy to give Johnson et al. a fair bit of leeway, but he got the big calls wrong!
[Addendum 2: The Times confirms this, stating that "...The guidance said that if transgender people are excluded from a space, organisations should consider whether there is a suitable alternative for them and that it would not be proportionate to leave them without essential services, such as access to lavatories...But it also outlines how in some cases that may not be possible owing to the physical constraints of buildings or high costs. It said: “It may be that offering alternative arrangements is not reasonably possible […] this may be because of the type of service being provided, the needs of the service users, the physical constraints of any building, or because of the disproportionate financial costs associated with making those arrangements”..."]