The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
Actually, it can be difficult. I need a disabled toilet, because I am, and I find that often in smaller 'listed' buildings there are no no such toilets, the excuse being that the alterations necessary are not possible when complying with the requirements of whatever the listed buildings regulations are called.
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
The simplest solution to me seems to be to make all toilets gender neutral where practical. A lot of establishments seem to be following this practice now. Waterstones bookshops are ahead of the curve on this and two unversities I have visited over the last coupleof weeks (UCL and Portsmouth) have gone down this route.
Ironically the only real downside is it means men might end up having to queue in the same way women have had to suffer over the years.
The appendices contain two discussant contributions: one from kyf_100, another from Cyclefree. Cyclefree wishes to point out that although she has contributed her discussant contribution, responsibility of the article remains with the author (me). I am happy to acknowledge this.
As has been noted on PB, Cyclefree is poorly at the moment so I assume she would appreciate a virtual hug from other PBers
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
Actually, it can be difficult. I need a disabled toilet, because I am, and I find that often in smaller 'listed' buildings there are no no such toilets, the excuse being that the alterations necessary are not possible when complying with the requirements of whatever the listed buildings regulations are called.
Indeed and that is a major problem, for yourself and anyone else who requires it.
Rather than trying to argue people don't need the facilities, ensuring the facilities do exist for anyone who does need it, would be a better objective.
If the end-point safe and dignified facilities for the disabled, for trans individuals and for women then that is a win/win, is it not?
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
And yet they were, repeatedly.
In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries. The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder. More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.
I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
The Korean War killed around 10% of the civilian population. Are we up for that ?
Personally I am not up for any of it. I do not agree with this attack on Iran (with or without targeting the oil infrastructure) nor the Israeli actions in Gaza.
But the argument made was that we should not be bombing energy infrastructure because it has been banned under international treaty since 1949. I am simply pointing out that that has not stopped even those countries who supposedly support international law from making these attacks in the interim so that it seems a strange issue to raise now.
I disagree on that point. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think the moral logic is correct.
This is a war started by the US and Israel, with a couple of justifications advanced for it (regime change, for the benefit of the Iranian people, and preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons).
Those justifications are completely at odds with mass targeting of civilian infrastructure, and by extension, mass targeting of civilians.
That there are previous precedents for targeting civilians doesn't make any kind of justification, which is what Barty is arguing. On the contrary, it makes the war itself seem less justified.
There will be arguments in both sides about any war - very much the case in Korea, too. You don't just ignore actions which argue against justification, just because someone has done them before.
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
Protects everyone from what? It does not protect disabled women (or men) from whatever their non-disabled peers are protected from. Indeed, it rather places disabled people at the bottom of the pile.
As for workplaces, you would need to check Employment and Safety legislation to see what they say about the provision of single sex facilities. It is a mess.
And in the mean time, if Susan (or Steve) walk past their convenient conveniences and take the lift to the disabled toilet, won't that raise a few eyebrows? Won't that out them?
The appendices contain two discussant contributions: one from kyf_100, another from Cyclefree. Cyclefree wishes to point out that although she has contributed her discussant contribution, responsibility of the article remains with the author (me). I am happy to acknowledge this.
As has been noted on PB, Cyclefree is poorly at the moment so I assume she would appreciate a virtual hug from other PBers
Sorry to read that Cyclefree is not so well at the moment. My good wishes go to her, and thanks for the contributions she has made. I look forward to more.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
And yet they were, repeatedly.
In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries. The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder. More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.
I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
The Korean War killed around 10% of the civilian population. Are we up for that ?
Personally I am not up for any of it. I do not agree with this attack on Iran (with or without targeting the oil infrastructure) nor the Israeli actions in Gaza.
But the argument made was that we should not be bombing energy infrastructure because it has been banned under international treaty since 1949. I am simply pointing out that that has not stopped even those countries who supposedly support international law from making these attacks in the interim so that it seems a strange issue to raise now.
I disagree on that point. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think the moral logic is correct.
This is a war started by the US and Israel, with a couple of justifications advanced for it (regime change, for the benefit of the Iranian people, and preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons).
Those justifications are completely at odds with mass targeting of civilian infrastructure, and by extension, mass targeting of civilians.
That there are previous precedents for targeting civilians doesn't make any kind of justification, which is what Barty is arguing. On the contrary, it makes the war itself seem less justified.
There will be arguments in both sides about any war - very much the case in Korea, too. You don't just ignore actions which argue against justification, just because someone has done them before.
It is at odds with the mass targeting of civilian infrastructure, it is not at odds with the targeting of military infrastructure.
Under the precedence set ever since the 4th Convention was passed, energy is dual-use. It serves civilian and military objectives.
Targeting it, because of the military objective, is legitimate. Targeting it, because of civilians, is not.
So claim it is for military purposes (which it is) and it is acceptable. As we did in 1999, half a century after the Convention was passed.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I believe that some WI branches have disaffiliated from the National Body as a result.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
And yet they were, repeatedly.
In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries. The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder. More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.
I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?
I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.
I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.
I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.
Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?
Isn't the Ukraine difference that they were subject to unprovoked aggression and their own energy infrastructure has been extensively targeted?
As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
I passionately believe that no one should be attacked for their gender or gender preferences.
However
I do believe
A man has a dick A woman has a fanny A hermaphrodite may have fanny and dick A transvestite wants to cross dress and respect them for that.
Outside of that it's a topic that frankly completely and utterly turns me off.
A more pragmatic view might take into account the purpose of the question. Suppose you work for Boots and are fitting out a new shop. Do you count Susan as a woman for deciding how much shelf space is given to lipstick? And to tampons? I'd suggest the answers would be different.
Typical yanks , could not hit the right barn door. Have they destroyed / obliterated the nuclear facilities yet again or are they going for a 3rd time. Starmer wibbling and wobbling means we are next in line , pathetic.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
It is not clear to me what the law now says about that.
Direct discrimination in the workplace is clearly barred, but "things should generally be trans inclusive" is a wish, not a legal statement or test, and it's not now very clear, quite where borderlines are drawn.
It isn't, no. Eg there's an obvious clash between the EA and the GRA. Then again, it wasn't 100% clear before the judgement either. I'm particularly interested in how other countries have reached an accepted MO on this. My sense is we're making a bit of a meal of it in the UK. I gather this aspect might be discussed in the appendix material which I haven't yet read but plan to.
Excellent from @viewcode anyway. Quality research and writing.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
And yet they were, repeatedly.
In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries. The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder. More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.
I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?
I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.
I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.
I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.
Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?
Isn't the Ukraine difference that they were subject to unprovoked aggression and their own energy infrastructure has been extensively targeted?
Ukraine is facing an existential threat. In such circumstances, Just War Theory goes out the window.
In the current conflict, it is Iran that is facing an existential threat, not the US. The US should be following the rules of war, but there's more of a case for Iran do target whatever it can in order to survive.
Tory chief whip reposts AI video created by far-right figure who was jailed for hate crimes
Exclusive: Rebecca Harris promotes latest Crewkerne Gazette skit, created by Joshua Bonehill-Paine who says he is Tory member
The Conservative party’s chief whip has been condemned for promoting AI-generated footage created by a notorious far-right figure who was jailed for hate crimes against Jewish people.
Rebecca Harris reposted the latest skit by the Crewkerne Gazette, which depicts Kemi Badenoch and her shadow justice secretary, Nick Timothy, as characters in the gangster film Scarface.
The online satirical account had gained a large online following before its creator was revealed last month to be Joshua Bonehill-Paine, an activist who previously described himself as a “nationalist, fascist, theorist and supporter of white rights”.
It can now also be revealed that Bonehill-Paine claims to be a fully paid-up member of the Conservative party, despite a history of far-right activism and convictions ranging from assault to racially aggravated harassment against a Jewish Labour MP.
Jokes aside, the PM's Chief of Staff having his phone nicked would have had much bigger implications at the time of the robbery. The importance of tech security/spying is made clear to spads all the time. Govt by WhatsApp is normal. Who has that phone now and what else was on it?
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
And yet they were, repeatedly.
In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries. The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder. More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.
I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?
I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.
I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.
I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.
Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?
Isn't the Ukraine difference that they were subject to unprovoked aggression and their own energy infrastructure has been extensively targeted?
Ukraine is facing an existential threat. In such circumstances, Just War Theory goes out the window.
In the current conflict, it is Iran that is facing an existential threat, not the US. The US should be following the rules of war, but there's more of a case for Iran do target whatever it can in order to survive.
Israel is facing an existential threat too.
Iran is an existential threat to Israel, especially if it acquires nukes.
Many critics of this war have said that they think if the regime survives this war then its now more likely to acquire nukes.
QED regime change in Iran is existential for Israel.
A deeply bipolar song, very upbeat and catchy, but actually sad and about child abuse.
Maybe that's what makes it so brilliant.
I always thought that it was about domestic abuse rather than child abuse. But I completely agree about the contrast between the upbeat tune and the actual content which is disturbing.
Yes, I think I'm okay I walked into the door again If you ask that's what I'll say And it's not your business anyway
I think it is based on the abuse of Suzanne Vega by her Stepfather
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
Actually, it can be difficult. I need a disabled toilet, because I am, and I find that often in smaller 'listed' buildings there are no no such toilets, the excuse being that the alterations necessary are not possible when complying with the requirements of whatever the listed buildings regulations are called.
Indeed and that is a major problem, for yourself and anyone else who requires it.
Rather than trying to argue people don't need the facilities, ensuring the facilities do exist for anyone who does need it, would be a better objective.
If the end-point safe and dignified facilities for the disabled, for trans individuals and for women then that is a win/win, is it not?
You are always free with other people's cash. We have more pressing needs that separate toilets for a miniscule percentage of the population. If they have block and tackle they should be in the gents , otherwise use the ladies, fairly simple.
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
Actually, it can be difficult. I need a disabled toilet, because I am, and I find that often in smaller 'listed' buildings there are no no such toilets, the excuse being that the alterations necessary are not possible when complying with the requirements of whatever the listed buildings regulations are called.
Indeed and that is a major problem, for yourself and anyone else who requires it.
Rather than trying to argue people don't need the facilities, ensuring the facilities do exist for anyone who does need it, would be a better objective.
If the end-point safe and dignified facilities for the disabled, for trans individuals and for women then that is a win/win, is it not?
You are always free with other people's cash. We have more pressing needs that separate toilets for a miniscule percentage of the population. If they have block and tackle they should be in the gents , otherwise use the ladies, fairly simple.
And the disabled? 🤔
Gender-neutral disabled facilities done well serve many purposes. In many places they dual as baby changing facilities too. And if they exist, no reason why they can't be used by trans individuals or anyone else who requires privacy.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
And yet they were, repeatedly.
In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries. The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder. More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.
I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?
I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.
I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.
I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.
Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?
Isn't the Ukraine difference that they were subject to unprovoked aggression and their own energy infrastructure has been extensively targeted?
Ukraine is facing an existential threat. In such circumstances, Just War Theory goes out the window.
In the current conflict, it is Iran that is facing an existential threat, not the US. The US should be following the rules of war, but there's more of a case for Iran do target whatever it can in order to survive.
Israel is facing an existential threat too.
Iran is an existential threat to Israel, especially if it acquires nukes.
Many critics of this war have said that they think if the regime survives this war then its now more likely to acquire nukes.
QED regime change in Iran is existential for Israel.
Israel under this twat puts itself under unnecessary threat.
However, it also needs to double down and go even further on nuclear and renewables.
So far the people calling for the first oddly don’t want the second.
Open your mind, I think you'll find virtually everyone here advocates both the first and the second.
Again, shades of grey. We need to transition to clean, renewable, self-generated energy and we also need hydrocarbons. Both for the transition and indefinitely into the future.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
And yet they were, repeatedly.
In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries. The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder. More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.
I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?
I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.
I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.
I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.
Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?
Isn't the Ukraine difference that they were subject to unprovoked aggression and their own energy infrastructure has been extensively targeted?
Ukraine is facing an existential threat. In such circumstances, Just War Theory goes out the window.
In the current conflict, it is Iran that is facing an existential threat, not the US. The US should be following the rules of war, but there's more of a case for Iran do target whatever it can in order to survive.
Israel is facing an existential threat too.
Iran is an existential threat to Israel, especially if it acquires nukes.
Many critics of this war have said that they think if the regime survives this war then its now more likely to acquire nukes.
QED regime change in Iran is existential for Israel.
Israel under this twat puts itself under unnecessary threat.
I read for the first time last night that Rayner’s approach is possibly now to try and get a more left wing cabinet and leave Sir Keir unchallenged.
Expect more of this as we get to May, with the people who had been quietly calling for Sir Keir to go using it as an off-ramp to get the changes they want.
Nobody wants to deal with the current mess except maybe Andy Burnham but he’s screwed.
Odds on Sir Keir staying for the remainder of 2026 I think are extremely high.
How many trans are out there? Susans, and susans of them.
Not Sustrans any more.
They are now the "Walk Wheel Cycle Trust". I think that is designed to be un-acronym-able. If you try, it sounds like a guinea pig.
(Expect a rebranding of the National Cycle Network in due course, to reflect that it is used just as heavily for walking and wheeling. There is the slight problem that it is on 70683 signposts to be dealt with.)
Nonesense
The sign posts are the opportunity - to engage with domain expert consultancies is creating signage that is inclusive, modern and forward looking.
After £216 million pounds has been spent on creating signs that minorities find racist, are invisible to those with colour blindness and could attacks for epileptics, no actual new sign would be installed. Probably for the best, since testing revolved that no one can actually read the information on them.
You would have to be pretty thick not to know that you can walk on it , absolute bollox for nutjobs. Minorities should be told to go F*** themselves and get a life or bugger off where they don't think everything and everything is racist.
Ok, I have to leave the building now, as i'm in a hotel visiting a sick relative in another town. It was originally thought that the condition was severe but is now resolving to merely serious, so there's...that. Consequently communications will be spotty for a while, possibly the rest of the day.
As usual, if you have any questions or comments, leave them in the comments and I'll address them later today/tomorrow. Thank you in advance and don't be afraid to throw brickbats if you see fit.
I urge you to look at the appendices. They contain several lookup tables, two worked examples, two discussant contributions and much more. If you don't want to read all of them, may I recommend the discussant contributions from kyf_100 and Cyclefree. Both come at the subject from diametrically opposed directions but both contribute text that was lucid and interesting. It's like one of those DVDs where the extras are better than the film.
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
The simplest solution to me seems to be to make all toilets gender neutral where practical. A lot of establishments seem to be following this practice now. Waterstones bookshops are ahead of the curve on this and two unversities I have visited over the last coupleof weeks (UCL and Portsmouth) have gone down this route.
Ironically the only real downside is it means men might end up having to queue in the same way women have had to suffer over the years.
Why go to all that for a miniscule minority who whine about anything, if you have bollox you use gents , if not you use ladies. Pandering to all these miniscule minorities is why this country is so F****d up
How many trans are out there? Susans, and susans of them.
Not Sustrans any more.
They are now the "Walk Wheel Cycle Trust". I think that is designed to be un-acronym-able. If you try, it sounds like a guinea pig.
(Expect a rebranding of the National Cycle Network in due course, to reflect that it is used just as heavily for walking and wheeling. There is the slight problem that it is on 70683 signposts to be dealt with.)
Nonesense
The sign posts are the opportunity - to engage with domain expert consultancies is creating signage that is inclusive, modern and forward looking.
After £216 million pounds has been spent on creating signs that minorities find racist, are invisible to those with colour blindness and could attacks for epileptics, no actual new sign would be installed. Probably for the best, since testing revolved that no one can actually read the information on them.
Hah !
They have pretty much zero budget, including for maintenance, and they have never had one. I think the whole of England is about £10 million per annum, specific funded projects aside. There's no money in it for consultants !
That is why they do not install signposts but put stickers on other people's.
That’s an opportunity to setup a charity to lobby the government to give money to rural signposting.
1) the charity raises money to lobby the government 2) it uses the money to arrange conferences in the Bahamas for Government officials, civil servants, press, professional domain people 3) the money supports a 6 figure lifestyle for the board of the charity. 4) after the first round of 2, it runs entirely on government money. 5) no actual money is spent on signs.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
Everybody seems to be talking about Israel and Iran, but Israel is kicking seven levels of s**t out of innocent Lebanon, pretending it's attacking an Iranian ally, Hezbollah, and few of us say a word.
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
Actually, it can be difficult. I need a disabled toilet, because I am, and I find that often in smaller 'listed' buildings there are no no such toilets, the excuse being that the alterations necessary are not possible when complying with the requirements of whatever the listed buildings regulations are called.
Indeed and that is a major problem, for yourself and anyone else who requires it.
Rather than trying to argue people don't need the facilities, ensuring the facilities do exist for anyone who does need it, would be a better objective.
If the end-point safe and dignified facilities for the disabled, for trans individuals and for women then that is a win/win, is it not?
You are always free with other people's cash. We have more pressing needs that separate toilets for a miniscule percentage of the population. If they have block and tackle they should be in the gents , otherwise use the ladies, fairly simple.
And the disabled? 🤔
Gender-neutral disabled facilities done well serve many purposes. In many places they dual as baby changing facilities too. And if they exist, no reason why they can't be used by trans individuals or anyone else who requires privacy.
There should be disabled toilets anywhere possible if not everywhere for sure.
As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
In this case it's seems fairly simple.
A war of choice, which risks devastating the global economy for years, in pursuit of uncertain aims, with questionable prospects of success, and with no popular support at home or abroad, is unjustified practically or morally.
I passionately believe that no one should be attacked for their gender or gender preferences.
However
I do believe
A man has a dick A woman has a fanny A hermaphrodite may have fanny and dick A transvestite wants to cross dress and respect them for that.
Outside of that it's a topic that frankly completely and utterly turns me off.
A more pragmatic view might take into account the purpose of the question. Suppose you work for Boots and are fitting out a new shop. Do you count Susan as a woman for deciding how much shelf space is given to lipstick? And to tampons? I'd suggest the answers would be different.
I'm not sure why you have to allocate Women or Men to various parts of the shop. Why don't you use the names of the articles? Such as "make up" or Sanitaryware. I'm sure some of us older guys may need to wear sanitary products in their pants as incontinence sets in.
I'm also sure that men can wear lipstick as well as eyeshadow in this day and age.
Everybody seems to be talking about Israel and Iran, but Israel is kicking seven levels of s**t out of innocent Lebanon, pretending it's attacking an Iranian ally, Hezbollah, and few of us say a word.
Because it's untrue. Hezbollah have continuously attacked Israel from inside Lebanon.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
And yet they were, repeatedly.
In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries. The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder. More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.
I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?
I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.
I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.
I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.
Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?
Isn't the Ukraine difference that they were subject to unprovoked aggression and their own energy infrastructure has been extensively targeted?
Ukraine is facing an existential threat. In such circumstances, Just War Theory goes out the window.
In the current conflict, it is Iran that is facing an existential threat, not the US. The US should be following the rules of war, but there's more of a case for Iran do target whatever it can in order to survive.
Israel is facing an existential threat too.
Iran is an existential threat to Israel, especially if it acquires nukes.
Many critics of this war have said that they think if the regime survives this war then its now more likely to acquire nukes.
QED regime change in Iran is existential for Israel.
Israel under this twat puts itself under unnecessary threat.
The whole ethos of Netanyahu is war.
Israel is the aggressor
Absolutely. The US and Israel lure the Iranians into a negotiation on their nuclear capability and while negotiations are ongoing they decide to bomb them.
The driver now for Iran to get a Nuke, if they do, is because of the US and Israel’s recent actions. QED indeed.
Everybody seems to be talking about Israel and Iran, but Israel is kicking seven levels of s**t out of innocent Lebanon, pretending it's attacking an Iranian ally, Hezbollah, and few of us say a word.
Those residential buildings being levelled in Beirut are clearly military targets !
I passionately believe that no one should be attacked for their gender or gender preferences.
However
I do believe
A man has a dick A woman has a fanny A hermaphrodite may have fanny and dick A transvestite wants to cross dress and respect them for that.
Outside of that it's a topic that frankly completely and utterly turns me off.
A more pragmatic view might take into account the purpose of the question. Suppose you work for Boots and are fitting out a new shop. Do you count Susan as a woman for deciding how much shelf space is given to lipstick? And to tampons? I'd suggest the answers would be different.
I'm not sure why you have to allocate Women or Men to various parts of the shop. Why don't you use the names of the articles? Such as "make up" or Sanitaryware. I'm sure some of us older guys may need to wear sanitary products in their pants as incontinence sets in.
I'm also sure that men can wear lipstick as well as eyeshadow in this day and age.
Obviously you have missed the point, which is probably my fault. Do you count Susan as a woman for the purpose of forecasting sales (which determines stock levels) for different items?
ETA and it is common in any shop for similar items to be displayed next to each other.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
Quite eye opening that you seem to see the determined minority as the anti-trans
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
The simplest solution to me seems to be to make all toilets gender neutral where practical. A lot of establishments seem to be following this practice now. Waterstones bookshops are ahead of the curve on this and two unversities I have visited over the last coupleof weeks (UCL and Portsmouth) have gone down this route.
Ironically the only real downside is it means men might end up having to queue in the same way women have had to suffer over the years.
Why go to all that for a miniscule minority who whine about anything, if you have bollox you use gents , if not you use ladies. Pandering to all these miniscule minorities is why this country is so F****d up
Your friend Susan has no bollocks yet is banned from using the ladies under the law.
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
The simplest solution to me seems to be to make all toilets gender neutral where practical. A lot of establishments seem to be following this practice now. Waterstones bookshops are ahead of the curve on this and two unversities I have visited over the last coupleof weeks (UCL and Portsmouth) have gone down this route.
Ironically the only real downside is it means men might end up having to queue in the same way women have had to suffer over the years.
Why go to all that for a miniscule minority who whine about anything, if you have bollox you use gents , if not you use ladies. Pandering to all these miniscule minorities is why this country is so F****d up
Lets just say I don't agree with you on that Malc.
As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
Apparently all that needs to happen is for Iran to surrender unconditionally to the aggressor. I know that. I read it here. I’m amazed they haven’t.
Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
And yet they were, repeatedly.
In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries. The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder. More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.
I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?
I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.
I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.
I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.
Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?
Isn't the Ukraine difference that they were subject to unprovoked aggression and their own energy infrastructure has been extensively targeted?
Ukraine is facing an existential threat. In such circumstances, Just War Theory goes out the window.
In the current conflict, it is Iran that is facing an existential threat, not the US. The US should be following the rules of war, but there's more of a case for Iran do target whatever it can in order to survive.
Israel is facing an existential threat too.
Iran is an existential threat to Israel, especially if it acquires nukes.
Many critics of this war have said that they think if the regime survives this war then its now more likely to acquire nukes.
QED regime change in Iran is existential for Israel.
Israel under this twat puts itself under unnecessary threat.
The whole ethos of Netanyahu is war.
Israel is the aggressor
The world would be a safer place after regime change in both Iran and Israel.
I read for the first time last night that Rayner’s approach is possibly now to try and get a more left wing cabinet and leave Sir Keir unchallenged.
Expect more of this as we get to May, with the people who had been quietly calling for Sir Keir to go using it as an off-ramp to get the changes they want.
Nobody wants to deal with the current mess except maybe Andy Burnham but he’s screwed.
Odds on Sir Keir staying for the remainder of 2026 I think are extremely high.
Starmer's red lines will be Reeves, Mahmood and possibly Streeting.
Rayner back in her old roles definitely strengthens Cabinet.
Powell is doing OK in Rayners old role, so does Rayner want that role or Housing?
Heidi Alexander IMHO far more effective that Haigh.
One key role with an excellent square peg but in a round hole is Chief Whip.
Rayner or Haigh could be very very effective in that role working with the left.
The other logical and sensible move would be Thornberry who is an excellent communicator on TV for Hermer.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
And yet they were, repeatedly.
In the Korean War the UN repeatedly targeted Korean Oil refineries. The US bombed oil depots and refineries as part of the 1966 Operation Rolling Thunder. More recently Ukraine has been targeting Russian Oil refineries.
I use these examples as in all three cases we are looking at the supposed proponents of international law and order actively targeting enemy oil production facilities.
I'm not sure if I follow this argument. Does it come down to "dealing drugs is illegal, but people still do it, so..."?
I think we'd all agree that the world would be a better place if such conventions were abided by. There are times when they don't survive contact with 21st century reality - human rights/refugees, and must be reformed - and others when they must be suspended because an aggressor would use them to their advantage otherwise. We should clearly state when this is the case.
I think a justifiable action against Iran would be a total economic blockage - stop them exporting oil to China/India, in the same way they are doing that to the Gulf States for Europe. Destroying their domestic energy/water is entirely different.
I think my point is that we have never even tried to abide by these rules. If the UN itself was ignoring these rules and if we are condoning Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries today then it seems rather hypocritical to be calling out this one specific element of the Israeli/US actions. All the more so when the basic idea of the war, to my mind, is unjustified and counter to international law.
Has there actually been a war the West has been involved in since WW2 where we have not attacked energy infrastructure if present?
Isn't the Ukraine difference that they were subject to unprovoked aggression and their own energy infrastructure has been extensively targeted?
Ukraine is facing an existential threat. In such circumstances, Just War Theory goes out the window.
In the current conflict, it is Iran that is facing an existential threat, not the US. The US should be following the rules of war, but there's more of a case for Iran do target whatever it can in order to survive.
Israel is facing an existential threat too.
Iran is an existential threat to Israel, especially if it acquires nukes.
Many critics of this war have said that they think if the regime survives this war then its now more likely to acquire nukes.
QED regime change in Iran is existential for Israel.
Israel under this twat puts itself under unnecessary threat.
The whole ethos of Netanyahu is war.
Israel is the aggressor
The world would be a safer place after regime change in both Iran and Israel.
In your neck of the woods last night, saw petrol vary from 137 to 157 within a few miles! The Jet Hollybush Hill is the cheapest but has long queues onto the main road even in the early hours!
In your neck of the woods last night, saw petrol vary from 137 to 157 within a few miles! The Jet Hollybush Hill is the cheapest but has long queues onto the main road even in the early hours!
Similar between Braintree Sainsbury's, on the 'traditional' Stane Street between Colchester and St Albans, and BP a bit further down the modern A120.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
Quite eye opening that you seem to see the determined minority as the anti-trans
I'm sure that your eyes are fully open whenever necessary.
But yes- I am pretty confident that the majority view is "live and let live, but don't scare the horses". Hey, I grew up in a port town; nothing better for learning that there's nowt as queer as folk.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.
The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).
The toilets thing is unfortunate and seems to have been extended beyond the Supreme Court judgment by the EHRC. In practice, it creates the requirement for trans men and trans women to ‘out’ themselves at work, in restaurants, and just about anywhere really by forcing them to use the ‘wrong’ facilities (including disabled toilets with no disability).
No, it does not.
Plenty of people use the gender-neutral disabled toilets for a plethora of reasons and anyway not all disabilities are visible.
Having adequate provision of gender-neutral toilets that can be used by the disabled or anyone else who requires them is a reasonable compromise that protects everyone.
The simplest solution to me seems to be to make all toilets gender neutral where practical. A lot of establishments seem to be following this practice now. Waterstones bookshops are ahead of the curve on this and two unversities I have visited over the last coupleof weeks (UCL and Portsmouth) have gone down this route.
Ironically the only real downside is it means men might end up having to queue in the same way women have had to suffer over the years.
Why go to all that for a miniscule minority who whine about anything, if you have bollox you use gents , if not you use ladies. Pandering to all these miniscule minorities is why this country is so F****d up
Lets just say I don't agree with you on that Malc.
Pandering to angry Scotchmen is ruining the country. Discuss.
After all, Scots are 10% of the population, Scots men are 5%. Angry Scots men is 4.99999999999%
Everybody seems to be talking about Israel and Iran, but Israel is kicking seven levels of s**t out of innocent Lebanon, pretending it's attacking an Iranian ally, Hezbollah, and few of us say a word.
I can say everyone play nicely but not sure Bibi is reading pb.com and open to persuasion?
Iran is the bigger news because of $$$$ and oil rather than morals or consistency.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
Quite eye opening that you seem to see the determined minority as the anti-trans
I'm sure that your eyes are fully open whenever necessary.
But yes- I am pretty confident that the majority view is "live and let live, but don't scare the horses". Hey, I grew up in a port town; nothing better for learning that there's nowt as queer as folk.
That doesn't codify into law very well.
Personally I would suggest the determined minority are on both sides - those who are simply anti-Trans on principle and those who believe that there should be absolutely no limits for Trans including safeguarding and sport. Each seems just as bad as the other
Only comment I would have is in section 2 - I think the conclusion “must” would have benefited from qualification (“must, as the law stands,”) because it was not a permanent judgement and they were clear that Parliament retains the right to clear up the middle should it so wish.
Not going to get involved in the debate which generates more heat than light. The fundamental problem is that (i) there is a focus on individual rights even if they damage group rights; (ii) that our society has developed an unwillingness to compromise on very difficult decisions where there are conflicting interests; and (iii) where in the past these difficult situations were dealt with (more often than not) courtesy and understanding they have been seized on by political activists and weaponised to push an agenda.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
Quite eye opening that you seem to see the determined minority as the anti-trans
I'm sure that your eyes are fully open whenever necessary.
But yes- I am pretty confident that the majority view is "live and let live, but don't scare the horses". Hey, I grew up in a port town; nothing better for learning that there's nowt as queer as folk.
That doesn't codify into law very well.
What do you mean by "I'm sure that your eyes are fully open whenever necessary."?
A deeply bipolar song, very upbeat and catchy, but actually sad and about child abuse.
Maybe that's what makes it so brilliant.
I’ll try it later. I always quite like songs where the lyrics are counter to the music.
Have you come across Artificial Flowers (a little more mournful than their usual style) about a 10 year old whose parents freeze to death and she is forced to work to survive
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
Quite eye opening that you seem to see the determined minority as the anti-trans
I'm sure that your eyes are fully open whenever necessary.
But yes- I am pretty confident that the majority view is "live and let live, but don't scare the horses". Hey, I grew up in a port town; nothing better for learning that there's nowt as queer as folk.
That doesn't codify into law very well.
Personally I would suggest the determined minority are on both sides - those who are simply anti-Trans on principle and those who believe that there should be absolutely no limits for Trans including safeguarding and sport. Each seems just as bad as the other
Fair point, I'd agree that the more assertive trans campaigners have badly screwed things up for people who just want to get in with their lives.
That doesn't make where we've currently landed right.
However, it also needs to double down and go even further on nuclear and renewables.
So far the people calling for the first oddly don’t want the second.
Open your mind, I think you'll find virtually everyone here advocates both the first and the second.
Again, shades of grey. We need to transition to clean, renewable, self-generated energy and we also need hydrocarbons. Both for the transition and indefinitely into the future.
Its never been either/or.
“virtually everyone here advocates both”
I’m not in that group. It feels to me “virtually everyone” thinks there is a helpful pot of gold for UK under the North Sea, simply based on “Norways doing fine by it, what green woke nonsense is preventing us too!”
It’s certainly not as black and white as that! And I suspect most of the broader nuanced picture we agree on the facts of it. Where we can’t agree, I’m happy to adjust my view. All I wish is to be correctly informed and convinced.
To start with what we agree on, differences with Norway that mean UK cannot copy Norway -
1. The geology was never perfectly split. Eight of the ten largest fields in the North Sea are located in Norwegian waters. Norway's sector tends to have thicker reservoirs and larger "structural closures," which provide longer production tails. Norway still has relatively underexplored "frontier" areas like the Barents Sea. 2. UK went mad at it - Norway paced themselves. UK pursued an aggressive development strategy to reduce reliance on imports and boost the economy. UKs 32 wells per 1,000 km² compared to Norway’s 15 wells per 1,000 km². This led to a UK production peak in 1999. 3. Norway invested revenues into a Sovereign Wealth Fund, makes money primarily by investing surplus revenue from oil and gas industry into global stocks, bonds, real estate, and renewable energy; over half its value is earned through investment returns, owning approximately 1.5% of all listed companies worldwide. UK spent its revenues as tax income. Our North Sea money is basically gone.
However, it also needs to double down and go even further on nuclear and renewables.
So far the people calling for the first oddly don’t want the second.
Open your mind, I think you'll find virtually everyone here advocates both the first and the second.
Again, shades of grey. We need to transition to clean, renewable, self-generated energy and we also need hydrocarbons. Both for the transition and indefinitely into the future.
Its never been either/or.
“virtually everyone here advocates both”
I’m not in that group. It feels to me “virtually everyone” thinks there is a helpful pot of gold for UK under the North Sea, simply based on “Norways doing fine by it, what green woke nonsense is preventing us too!”
It’s certainly not as black and white as that! And I suspect most of the broader nuanced picture we agree on the facts of it. Where we can’t agree, I’m happy to adjust my view. All I wish is to be correctly informed and convinced.
To start with what we agree on, differences with Norway that mean UK cannot copy Norway -
1. The geology was never perfectly split. Eight of the ten largest fields in the North Sea are located in Norwegian waters. Norway's sector tends to have thicker reservoirs and larger "structural closures," which provide longer production tails. Norway still has relatively underexplored "frontier" areas like the Barents Sea. 2. UK went mad at it - Norway paced themselves. UK pursued an aggressive development strategy to reduce reliance on imports and boost the economy. UKs 32 wells per 1,000 km² compared to Norway’s 15 wells per 1,000 km². This led to a UK production peak in 1999. 3. Norway invested revenues into a Sovereign Wealth Fund, makes money primarily by investing surplus revenue from oil and gas industry into global stocks, bonds, real estate, and renewable energy; over half its value is earned through investment returns, owning approximately 1.5% of all listed companies worldwide. UK spent its revenues as tax income. Our North Sea money is basically gone.
4. Granting new licences for drilling can lead to higher tax revenues, it’s not clear it would make UK gas prices cheaper. UK is integrated with European gas market, physically linked with undersea pipelines. Private energy companies operating UK’s section of North Sea, do not sell gas exclusively to UK, they sell to pan-European market and UK wholesale price moves in line with the European wholesale price. Additional supply available from granting more exploration licences unlikely to reduce price for UK consumers. 5. Nor do I think we will argue very much on the UK Gas and oil basins are depleting, oil basin currently has more remaining recoverable reserves than the gas basin, but oil too is approaching point of no longer technology recoverable and commercially viable to extract.
6. I think we agree on the figures for UK government income if we do nothing, no new “drilling” - government income from it drops to only about £300M by the end of this decade, down from what we can agree is about £3.5M now. Actual income figures rather glibly depends if looking at gross figures before the tax breaks required in order to make it happen, with those gives you a net figure.
However, it also needs to double down and go even further on nuclear and renewables.
So far the people calling for the first oddly don’t want the second.
Open your mind, I think you'll find virtually everyone here advocates both the first and the second.
Again, shades of grey. We need to transition to clean, renewable, self-generated energy and we also need hydrocarbons. Both for the transition and indefinitely into the future.
Its never been either/or.
“virtually everyone here advocates both”
I’m not in that group. It feels to me “virtually everyone” thinks there is a helpful pot of gold for UK under the North Sea, simply based on “Norways doing fine by it, what green woke nonsense is preventing us too!”
It’s certainly not as black and white as that! And I suspect most of the broader nuanced picture we agree on the facts of it. Where we can’t agree, I’m happy to adjust my view. All I wish is to be correctly informed and convinced.
To start with what we agree on, differences with Norway that mean UK cannot copy Norway -
1. The geology was never perfectly split. Eight of the ten largest fields in the North Sea are located in Norwegian waters. Norway's sector tends to have thicker reservoirs and larger "structural closures," which provide longer production tails. Norway still has relatively underexplored "frontier" areas like the Barents Sea. 2. UK went mad at it - Norway paced themselves. UK pursued an aggressive development strategy to reduce reliance on imports and boost the economy. UKs 32 wells per 1,000 km² compared to Norway’s 15 wells per 1,000 km². This led to a UK production peak in 1999. 3. Norway invested revenues into a Sovereign Wealth Fund, makes money primarily by investing surplus revenue from oil and gas industry into global stocks, bonds, real estate, and renewable energy; over half its value is earned through investment returns, owning approximately 1.5% of all listed companies worldwide. UK spent its revenues as tax income. Our North Sea money is basically gone.
4. Granting new licences for drilling can lead to higher tax revenues, it’s not clear it would make UK gas prices cheaper. UK is integrated with European gas market, physically linked with undersea pipelines. Private energy companies operating UK’s section of North Sea, do not sell gas exclusively to UK, they sell to pan-European market and UK wholesale price moves in line with the European wholesale price. Additional supply available from granting more exploration licences unlikely to reduce price for UK consumers. 5. Nor do I think we will argue very much on the UK Gas and oil basins are depleting, oil basin currently has more remaining recoverable reserves than the gas basin, but oil too is approaching point of no longer technology recoverable and commercially viable to extract.
6. I think we agree on the figures for UK government income if we do nothing, no new “drilling” - government income from it drops to only about £300M by the end of this decade, down from what we can agree is about £3.5M now. Actual income figures rather glibly depends if looking at gross figures before the tax breaks required in order to make it happen, with those gives you a net figure.
This comes to the crux of what we may differ and argue on. There is a lot of disagreement from economists and analysts how much oil and Gas wealth is there, that is commercially viable to get, before it becomes just how UK Coal industry reached end of road - where private enterprise cannot be sweetened by government subsidy to keep something propped up, to keep people in jobs, when business is barely making profit or indeed making losses.
What I currently understand, with new drilling available on the table, if we go for drilling government income from North Sea won’t drop to £300M but linger around £1.5B a year.
And by nature of the disagreement over how much left is technically and commercially viable to be harvested, some analysts are even doubtful it can bring in as much £1.5B a year to UK treasury.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
Implication of this:
Any women's group, regardless of what it's about or what it does, MUST exclude trans women whether they want to or not. They are only permitted to include trans women if they also include men - ie if they cease to be a women's group.
I'm surprised a small state social liberal like you would be happy with that. But ok.
However, it also needs to double down and go even further on nuclear and renewables.
So far the people calling for the first oddly don’t want the second.
Open your mind, I think you'll find virtually everyone here advocates both the first and the second.
Again, shades of grey. We need to transition to clean, renewable, self-generated energy and we also need hydrocarbons. Both for the transition and indefinitely into the future.
Its never been either/or.
“virtually everyone here advocates both”
I’m not in that group. It feels to me “virtually everyone” thinks there is a helpful pot of gold for UK under the North Sea, simply based on “Norways doing fine by it, what green woke nonsense is preventing us too!”
It’s certainly not as black and white as that! And I suspect most of the broader nuanced picture we agree on the facts of it. Where we can’t agree, I’m happy to adjust my view. All I wish is to be correctly informed and convinced.
To start with what we agree on, differences with Norway that mean UK cannot copy Norway -
1. The geology was never perfectly split. Eight of the ten largest fields in the North Sea are located in Norwegian waters. Norway's sector tends to have thicker reservoirs and larger "structural closures," which provide longer production tails. Norway still has relatively underexplored "frontier" areas like the Barents Sea. 2. UK went mad at it - Norway paced themselves. UK pursued an aggressive development strategy to reduce reliance on imports and boost the economy. UKs 32 wells per 1,000 km² compared to Norway’s 15 wells per 1,000 km². This led to a UK production peak in 1999. 3. Norway invested revenues into a Sovereign Wealth Fund, makes money primarily by investing surplus revenue from oil and gas industry into global stocks, bonds, real estate, and renewable energy; over half its value is earned through investment returns, owning approximately 1.5% of all listed companies worldwide. UK spent its revenues as tax income. Our North Sea money is basically gone.
4. Granting new licences for drilling can lead to higher tax revenues, it’s not clear it would make UK gas prices cheaper. UK is integrated with European gas market, physically linked with undersea pipelines. Private energy companies operating UK’s section of North Sea, do not sell gas exclusively to UK, they sell to pan-European market and UK wholesale price moves in line with the European wholesale price. Additional supply available from granting more exploration licences unlikely to reduce price for UK consumers. 5. Nor do I think we will argue very much on the UK Gas and oil basins are depleting, oil basin currently has more remaining recoverable reserves than the gas basin, but oil too is approaching point of no longer technology recoverable and commercially viable to extract.
6. I think we agree on the figures for UK government income if we do nothing, no new “drilling” - government income from it drops to only about £300M by the end of this decade, down from what we can agree is about £3.5M now. Actual income figures rather glibly depends if looking at gross figures before the tax breaks required in order to make it happen, with those gives you a net figure.
This comes to the crux of what we may differ and argue on. There is a lot of disagreement from economists and analysts how much oil and Gas wealth is there, that is commercially viable to get, before it becomes just how UK Coal industry reached end of road - where private enterprise cannot be sweetened by government subsidy to keep something propped up, to keep people in jobs, when business is barely making profit or indeed making losses.
What I currently understand, with new drilling available on the table, if we go for drilling government income from North Sea won’t drop to £300M but linger around £1.5B a year.
And by nature of the disagreement over how much left is technically and commercially viable to be harvested, some analysts are even doubtful it can bring in as much £1.5B a year to UK treasury.
I do though have to nip off for a bit. Busy busy me. it was my idea to involve Sunday School in today’s service, they had a blessing at the altar, and then sang Loud Hosanna for us hitting their highest notes at the end 👼. Now we are turning cardboard, all kinds of cardboard, into palms.
But rather than “your wrong” “no your wrong.” let’s calmly discuss and agree key points we can settle on. Whittle it down to just what we can’t.
As I think I have said before, I think that post-operative transsexuals should be given special dispensation to use the loos of their chosen gender. Many would disagree. Those in transition should have dispensation to use the disabled facilities.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
Implication of this:
Any women's group, regardless of what it's about or what it does, MUST exclude trans women whether they want to or not. They are only permitted to include trans women if they also include men - ie if they cease to be a women's group.
I'm surprised a small state social liberal like you would be happy with that. But ok.
If they accept males then they cease to be a women's group.
Groups should be free to choose who they accept, within the law, absolutely. I am perfectly OK with that.
Scouts accept girls who want to join. I can see absolutely no reason for Guides to reject young boys who want to join the Guides, however they have chosen to do that.
That is their choice, which as a small state social liberal I think they are and should be free to make, even if I don't agree with it.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
Quite eye opening that you seem to see the determined minority as the anti-trans
I'm sure that your eyes are fully open whenever necessary.
But yes- I am pretty confident that the majority view is "live and let live, but don't scare the horses". Hey, I grew up in a port town; nothing better for learning that there's nowt as queer as folk.
That doesn't codify into law very well.
What do you mean by "I'm sure that your eyes are fully open whenever necessary."?
Having your eyes newly opened to something implies a new revelation, uncovering a wolf in sheep's clothing. I was blind and now I see, as the Gospels put it.
An intelligent chap like you being surprised by what I wrote... Really?
I have no skin in this game and the header is comprehensive and the legal summary is very clear
On that basis I can't help fearing the law might be an ass. As @Stuartinromford suggested most sensible people would be of the opinion "live and let live". Whatever floats one's boat but I think there should be a significant distinction between someone undertaking transformative surgery and hormone therapy and Isla Bryson.
For decades no one minded James Morris transitioning to Jan. There was a trans glamour model called Tula in the 1970s who was often draped over a pimped car on the cover of Custom Car magazine or page 3 of the Sun. No one cared.
People like Isla Bryson have poisoned the well for those without ulterior criminal motivations.
However, it also needs to double down and go even further on nuclear and renewables.
So far the people calling for the first oddly don’t want the second.
Open your mind, I think you'll find virtually everyone here advocates both the first and the second.
Again, shades of grey. We need to transition to clean, renewable, self-generated energy and we also need hydrocarbons. Both for the transition and indefinitely into the future.
Its never been either/or.
“virtually everyone here advocates both”
I’m not in that group. It feels to me “virtually everyone” thinks there is a helpful pot of gold for UK under the North Sea, simply based on “Norways doing fine by it, what green woke nonsense is preventing us too!”
It’s certainly not as black and white as that! And I suspect most of the broader nuanced picture we agree on the facts of it. Where we can’t agree, I’m happy to adjust my view. All I wish is to be correctly informed and convinced.
To start with what we agree on, differences with Norway that mean UK cannot copy Norway -
1. The geology was never perfectly split. Eight of the ten largest fields in the North Sea are located in Norwegian waters. Norway's sector tends to have thicker reservoirs and larger "structural closures," which provide longer production tails. Norway still has relatively underexplored "frontier" areas like the Barents Sea. 2. UK went mad at it - Norway paced themselves. UK pursued an aggressive development strategy to reduce reliance on imports and boost the economy. UKs 32 wells per 1,000 km² compared to Norway’s 15 wells per 1,000 km². This led to a UK production peak in 1999. 3. Norway invested revenues into a Sovereign Wealth Fund, makes money primarily by investing surplus revenue from oil and gas industry into global stocks, bonds, real estate, and renewable energy; over half its value is earned through investment returns, owning approximately 1.5% of all listed companies worldwide. UK spent its revenues as tax income. Our North Sea money is basically gone.
Again you are making statements that are factually untrue and based on your own ignorance.
Norway does not have geology that differs substantiually from the UKCS nor are the reservoirs of a notably higher quality/thicker.
The Barents Sea has been considerably explored and is being produced (I know as I both my wife and I have worked Barents sea assets since the mid 1990s). And for the Barents Sea you can read the West of Shetlands in the UKCS.
As I said last night there is practically no diffence between the UK and Norway in terms of their exploration and production rates for most of the life of the basins. Both started within a few years of each other and the UK has produced about 35 billion BOE whilst Norway has produced about 40 billion BOE. Your comparison of wells per 1000 km2 is just laughably ignorant and meaningless.
The only thing you are correct about is the way we have treated the tax money. But even there you have to look at other factors - Norway has a population of around 5.5 million, the UK one 12 times that. They would never have used their tax revenue in the way we did as it would have crashed the economy. Nor did they have to use it for a transition from a heavy industry economy to a service ecomnomy - mostly because they never had a heavy industry economy in the first place.
I have no skin in this game and the header is comprehensive and the legal summary is very clear
On that basis I can't help fearing the law might be an ass. As @Stuartinromford suggested most sensible people would be of the opinion "live and let live". Whatever floats one's boat but I think there should be a significant distinction between someone undertaking transformative surgery and hormone therapy and Isla Bryson.
For decades no one minded James Morris transitioning to Jan. There was a trans glamour model called Tula in the 1970s who was often draped over a pimped car on the cover of Custom Car magazine or page 3 of the Sun. No one cared.
People like Isla Bryson have poisoned the well for those without ulterior criminal motivations.
Possibly the biggest mistake in the law was to say (with good intentions) that surgery was not required to be trans and get a GRA.
If only post-op individuals were being discussed, I think the debate would be much calmer. In fact I doubt there'd ever have been much of a debate.
Unintended consequences has meant that tightening up against abuse has meant safeguarding people who were legitimate.
However, it also needs to double down and go even further on nuclear and renewables.
So far the people calling for the first oddly don’t want the second.
Open your mind, I think you'll find virtually everyone here advocates both the first and the second.
Again, shades of grey. We need to transition to clean, renewable, self-generated energy and we also need hydrocarbons. Both for the transition and indefinitely into the future.
Its never been either/or.
“virtually everyone here advocates both”
I’m not in that group. It feels to me “virtually everyone” thinks there is a helpful pot of gold for UK under the North Sea, simply based on “Norways doing fine by it, what green woke nonsense is preventing us too!”
It’s certainly not as black and white as that! And I suspect most of the broader nuanced picture we agree on the facts of it. Where we can’t agree, I’m happy to adjust my view. All I wish is to be correctly informed and convinced.
To start with what we agree on, differences with Norway that mean UK cannot copy Norway -
1. The geology was never perfectly split. Eight of the ten largest fields in the North Sea are located in Norwegian waters. Norway's sector tends to have thicker reservoirs and larger "structural closures," which provide longer production tails. Norway still has relatively underexplored "frontier" areas like the Barents Sea. 2. UK went mad at it - Norway paced themselves. UK pursued an aggressive development strategy to reduce reliance on imports and boost the economy. UKs 32 wells per 1,000 km² compared to Norway’s 15 wells per 1,000 km². This led to a UK production peak in 1999. 3. Norway invested revenues into a Sovereign Wealth Fund, makes money primarily by investing surplus revenue from oil and gas industry into global stocks, bonds, real estate, and renewable energy; over half its value is earned through investment returns, owning approximately 1.5% of all listed companies worldwide. UK spent its revenues as tax income. Our North Sea money is basically gone.
4. Granting new licences for drilling can lead to higher tax revenues, it’s not clear it would make UK gas prices cheaper. UK is integrated with European gas market, physically linked with undersea pipelines. Private energy companies operating UK’s section of North Sea, do not sell gas exclusively to UK, they sell to pan-European market and UK wholesale price moves in line with the European wholesale price. Additional supply available from granting more exploration licences unlikely to reduce price for UK consumers. 5. Nor do I think we will argue very much on the UK Gas and oil basins are depleting, oil basin currently has more remaining recoverable reserves than the gas basin, but oil too is approaching point of no longer technology recoverable and commercially viable to extract.
6. I think we agree on the figures for UK government income if we do nothing, no new “drilling” - government income from it drops to only about £300M by the end of this decade, down from what we can agree is about £3.5M now. Actual income figures rather glibly depends if looking at gross figures before the tax breaks required in order to make it happen, with those gives you a net figure.
This comes to the crux of what we may differ and argue on. There is a lot of disagreement from economists and analysts how much oil and Gas wealth is there, that is commercially viable to get, before it becomes just how UK Coal industry reached end of road - where private enterprise cannot be sweetened by government subsidy to keep something propped up, to keep people in jobs, when business is barely making profit or indeed making losses.
What I currently understand, with new drilling available on the table, if we go for drilling government income from North Sea won’t drop to £300M but linger around £1.5B a year.
And by nature of the disagreement over how much left is technically and commercially viable to be harvested, some analysts are even doubtful it can bring in as much £1.5B a year to UK treasury.
Just to repeat. Your numbers are wrong (stop using AI)
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
It is a special military operation, they have not declared war.
We are not at war with Iran - we are in armed conflict.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
Quite eye opening that you seem to see the determined minority as the anti-trans
I'm sure that your eyes are fully open whenever necessary.
But yes- I am pretty confident that the majority view is "live and let live, but don't scare the horses". Hey, I grew up in a port town; nothing better for learning that there's nowt as queer as folk.
That doesn't codify into law very well.
What do you mean by "I'm sure that your eyes are fully open whenever necessary."?
Having your eyes newly opened to something implies a new revelation, uncovering a wolf in sheep's clothing. I was blind and now I see, as the Gospels put it.
An intelligent chap like you being surprised by what I wrote... Really?
Yes, I see the determined minority as the trans rights brigade, so was surprised to see you agree with me. Then I double took and realised you see the determined minority as people who think there’s something a bit odd about transgender people, which was a genuine eye opener.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
Implication of this:
Any women's group, regardless of what it's about or what it does, MUST exclude trans women whether they want to or not. They are only permitted to include trans women if they also include men - ie if they cease to be a women's group.
I'm surprised a small state social liberal like you would be happy with that. But ok.
I haven't got a Susan among my friendship group. AFAIK, anyway. Nor the 'opposite'. Not that I care either way.
But I do wonder about the WI; as far as I can see there are normally no situations where whether a "man" was present matters.
EXC: .@GoodwinMJ’s new book “Suicide of a Nation: Immigration, Islam, Identity” is out now, and I’m only 5 chapters in and have found a huge amount of what appears to be false quotes and basic misinterpretations of data, that appear to be AI hallucinations.
Matthew, can you explain the claims you made in the book that I’ve outlined in the below thread?
As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
Apparently all that needs to happen is for Iran to surrender unconditionally to the aggressor. I know that. I read it here. I’m amazed they haven’t.
Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky
I dk t know about Ukraine/armchairs - @Dura_Ace constructed an argument for the war requiring regime change. In Ukraine.
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
I think the narrative has already shifted somewhat. Taking in the Tories did that: they no longer look like an insurgent, anti-establishment outfit.
I am going to keep saying this: the Tories are underpriced for GE2029.
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
Apparently all that needs to happen is for Iran to surrender unconditionally to the aggressor. I know that. I read it here. I’m amazed they haven’t.
Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky
I dk t know about Ukraine/armchairs - @Dura_Ace constructed an argument for the war requiring regime change. In Ukraine.
Putin was at least willing to deploy ground troops in Ukraine which Trump isn't so far in Iran. Even then that has not led to a Russian win in Ukraine
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
Implication of this:
Any women's group, regardless of what it's about or what it does, MUST exclude trans women whether they want to or not. They are only permitted to include trans women if they also include men - ie if they cease to be a women's group.
I'm surprised a small state social liberal like you would be happy with that. But ok.
If they accept males then they cease to be a women's group.
Groups should be free to choose who they accept, within the law, absolutely. I am perfectly OK with that.
Scouts accept girls who want to join. I can see absolutely no reason for Guides to reject young boys who want to join the Guides, however they have chosen to do that.
That is their choice, which as a small state social liberal I think they are and should be free to make, even if I don't agree with it.
Back to the WI. It wishes to continue as it has been for many years - an organisation for women including trans women. Under the position you support it cannot do this. It must either stop being a women's organisation and accept men or it must exclude trans women and be for biological women only.
I get what you're saying. It's nice and clear as I know you like to be. But if you're able to view this as a 'small state socially liberal' position, well that's impressive and you should find out when auditions start for the gymnastics at the next Olympics. Men's gymnastics, I hasten to add. Must have fairness in elite sport.
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
Comments
Ironically the only real downside is it means men might end up having to queue in the same way women have had to suffer over the years.
As has been noted on PB, Cyclefree is poorly at the moment so I assume she would appreciate a virtual hug from other PBers
Rather than trying to argue people don't need the facilities, ensuring the facilities do exist for anyone who does need it, would be a better objective.
If the end-point safe and dignified facilities for the disabled, for trans individuals and for women then that is a win/win, is it not?
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think the moral logic is correct.
This is a war started by the US and Israel, with a couple of justifications advanced for it (regime change, for the benefit of the Iranian people, and preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons).
Those justifications are completely at odds with mass targeting of civilian infrastructure, and by extension, mass targeting of civilians.
That there are previous precedents for targeting civilians doesn't make any kind of justification, which is what Barty is arguing. On the contrary, it makes the war itself seem less justified.
There will be arguments in both sides about any war - very much the case in Korea, too. You don't just ignore actions which argue against justification, just because someone has done them before.
I am not religious.
I passionately believe that no one should be attacked for their gender or gender preferences.
However
I do believe
A man has a dick
A woman has a fanny
A hermaphrodite may have fanny and dick
A transvestite wants to cross dress and respect them for that.
Outside of that it's a topic that frankly completely and utterly turns me off.
As for workplaces, you would need to check Employment and Safety legislation to see what they say about the provision of single sex facilities. It is a mess.
And in the mean time, if Susan (or Steve) walk past their convenient conveniences and take the lift to the disabled toilet, won't that raise a few eyebrows? Won't that out them?
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
Under the precedence set ever since the 4th Convention was passed, energy is dual-use. It serves civilian and military objectives.
Targeting it, because of the military objective, is legitimate.
Targeting it, because of civilians, is not.
So claim it is for military purposes (which it is) and it is acceptable. As we did in 1999, half a century after the Convention was passed.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
Excellent from @viewcode anyway. Quality research and writing.
In the current conflict, it is Iran that is facing an existential threat, not the US. The US should be following the rules of war, but there's more of a case for Iran do target whatever it can in order to survive.
https://x.com/cleowatson88/status/2035641419168182439
Jokes aside, the PM's Chief of Staff having his phone nicked would have had much bigger implications at the time of the robbery. The importance of tech security/spying is made clear to spads all the time. Govt by WhatsApp is normal. Who has that phone now and what else was on it?
Iran is an existential threat to Israel, especially if it acquires nukes.
Many critics of this war have said that they think if the regime survives this war then its now more likely to acquire nukes.
QED regime change in Iran is existential for Israel.
However, it also needs to double down and go even further on nuclear and renewables.
So far the people calling for the first oddly don’t want the second.
Gender-neutral disabled facilities done well serve many purposes. In many places they dual as baby changing facilities too. And if they exist, no reason why they can't be used by trans individuals or anyone else who requires privacy.
The whole ethos of Netanyahu is war.
Israel is the aggressor
Again, shades of grey. We need to transition to clean, renewable, self-generated energy and we also need hydrocarbons. Both for the transition and indefinitely into the future.
Its never been either/or.
I prefer the Leader of the Opposition in Israel.
https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/03/01/at-last-a-just-war
Expect more of this as we get to May, with the people who had been quietly calling for Sir Keir to go using it as an off-ramp to get the changes they want.
Nobody wants to deal with the current mess except maybe Andy Burnham but he’s screwed.
Odds on Sir Keir staying for the remainder of 2026 I think are extremely high.
As usual, if you have any questions or comments, leave them in the comments and I'll address them later today/tomorrow. Thank you in advance and don't be afraid to throw brickbats if you see fit.
I urge you to look at the appendices. They contain several lookup tables, two worked examples, two discussant contributions and much more. If you don't want to read all of them, may I recommend the discussant contributions from kyf_100 and Cyclefree. Both come at the subject from diametrically opposed directions but both contribute text that was lucid and interesting. It's like one of those DVDs where the extras are better than the film.
1) the charity raises money to lobby the government
2) it uses the money to arrange conferences in the Bahamas for Government officials, civil servants, press, professional domain people
3) the money supports a 6 figure lifestyle for the board of the charity.
4) after the first round of 2, it runs entirely on government money.
5) no actual money is spent on signs.
Do I have to do all the thinking round here?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
A war of choice, which risks devastating the global economy for years, in pursuit of uncertain aims, with questionable prospects of success, and with no popular support at home or abroad, is unjustified practically or morally.
I'm also sure that men can wear lipstick as well as eyeshadow in this day and age.
The driver now for Iran to get a Nuke, if they do, is because of the US and Israel’s recent actions. QED indeed.
ETA and it is common in any shop for similar items to be displayed next to each other.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fyO7_PTHWb4
Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
Diesel 169.9
BP on A12 Eastern Avenue, Ilford North
Thanks Bibi and Trump and fuck you both.
Rayner back in her old roles definitely strengthens Cabinet.
Powell is doing OK in Rayners old role, so does Rayner want that role or Housing?
Heidi Alexander IMHO far more effective that Haigh.
One key role with an excellent square peg but in a round hole is Chief Whip.
Rayner or Haigh could be very very effective in that role working with the left.
The other logical and sensible move would be Thornberry who is an excellent communicator on TV for Hermer.
But yes- I am pretty confident that the majority view is "live and let live, but don't scare the horses". Hey, I grew up in a port town; nothing better for learning that there's nowt as queer as folk.
That doesn't codify into law very well.
The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).
After all, Scots are 10% of the population, Scots men are 5%. Angry Scots men is 4.99999999999%
Iran is the bigger news because of $$$$ and oil rather than morals or consistency.
Only comment I would have is in section 2 - I think the conclusion “must” would have benefited from qualification (“must, as the law stands,”) because it was not a permanent judgement and they were clear that Parliament retains the right to clear up the middle should it so wish.
Not going to get involved in the debate which generates more heat than light. The fundamental problem is that (i) there is a focus on individual rights even if they damage group rights; (ii) that our society has developed an unwillingness to compromise on very difficult decisions where there are conflicting interests; and (iii) where in the past these difficult situations were dealt with (more often than not) courtesy and understanding they have been seized on by political activists and weaponised to push an agenda.
Have you come across Artificial Flowers (a little more mournful than their usual style) about a 10 year old whose parents freeze to death and she is forced to work to survive
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xA3Jgxaaf3c
That doesn't make where we've currently landed right.
I’m not in that group. It feels to me “virtually everyone” thinks there is a helpful pot of gold for UK under the North Sea, simply based on “Norways doing fine by it, what green woke nonsense is preventing us too!”
It’s certainly not as black and white as that! And I suspect most of the broader nuanced picture we agree on the facts of it. Where we can’t agree, I’m happy to adjust my view. All I wish is to be correctly informed and convinced.
To start with what we agree on, differences with Norway that mean UK cannot copy Norway -
1. The geology was never perfectly split. Eight of the ten largest fields in the North Sea are located in Norwegian waters. Norway's sector tends to have thicker reservoirs and larger "structural closures," which provide longer production tails. Norway still has relatively underexplored "frontier" areas like the Barents Sea.
2. UK went mad at it - Norway paced themselves. UK pursued an aggressive development strategy to reduce reliance on imports and boost the economy. UKs 32 wells per 1,000 km² compared to Norway’s 15 wells per 1,000 km². This led to a UK production peak in 1999.
3. Norway invested revenues into a Sovereign Wealth Fund, makes money primarily by investing surplus revenue from oil and gas industry into global stocks, bonds, real estate, and renewable energy; over half its value is earned through investment returns, owning approximately 1.5% of all listed companies worldwide. UK spent its revenues as tax income. Our North Sea money is basically gone.
I must confess the shifting nuances of the whole trans debate I find hard to keep up with so this is useful.
5. Nor do I think we will argue very much on the UK Gas and oil basins are depleting, oil basin currently has more remaining recoverable reserves than the gas basin, but oil too is approaching point of no longer technology recoverable and commercially viable to extract.
6. I think we agree on the figures for UK government income if we do nothing, no new “drilling” - government income from it drops to only about £300M by the end of this decade, down from what we can agree is about £3.5M now. Actual income figures rather glibly depends if looking at gross figures before the tax breaks required in order to make it happen, with those gives you a net figure.
What I currently understand, with new drilling available on the table, if we go for drilling government income from North Sea won’t drop to £300M but linger around £1.5B a year.
And by nature of the disagreement over how much left is technically and commercially viable to be harvested, some analysts are even doubtful it can bring in as much £1.5B a year to UK treasury.
Any women's group, regardless of what it's about or what it does, MUST exclude trans women whether they want to or not. They are only permitted to include trans women if they also include men - ie if they cease to be a women's group.
I'm surprised a small state social liberal like you would be happy with that. But ok.
But rather than “your wrong” “no your wrong.” let’s calmly discuss and agree key points we can settle on. Whittle it down to just what we can’t.
Groups should be free to choose who they accept, within the law, absolutely. I am perfectly OK with that.
Scouts accept girls who want to join. I can see absolutely no reason for Guides to reject young boys who want to join the Guides, however they have chosen to do that.
That is their choice, which as a small state social liberal I think they are and should be free to make, even if I don't agree with it.
An intelligent chap like you being surprised by what I wrote... Really?
However pre markets open later today as well as the far east so we will know later
On that basis I can't help fearing the law might be an ass. As @Stuartinromford suggested most sensible people would be of the opinion "live and let live". Whatever floats one's boat but I think there should be a significant distinction between someone undertaking transformative surgery and hormone therapy and Isla Bryson.
For decades no one minded James Morris transitioning to Jan. There was a trans glamour model called Tula in the 1970s who was often draped over a pimped car on the cover of Custom Car magazine or page 3 of the Sun. No one cared.
People like Isla Bryson have poisoned the well for those without ulterior criminal motivations.
If we solve the toilet stuff can we then just let people get on with living their life however they want to live it?
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603225117
Norway does not have geology that differs substantiually from the UKCS nor are the reservoirs of a notably higher quality/thicker.
The Barents Sea has been considerably explored and is being produced (I know as I both my wife and I have worked Barents sea assets since the mid 1990s). And for the Barents Sea you can read the West of Shetlands in the UKCS.
As I said last night there is practically no diffence between the UK and Norway in terms of their exploration and production rates for most of the life of the basins. Both started within a few years of each other and the UK has produced about 35 billion BOE whilst Norway has produced about 40 billion BOE. Your comparison of wells per 1000 km2 is just laughably ignorant and meaningless.
The only thing you are correct about is the way we have treated the tax money. But even there you have to look at other factors - Norway has a population of around 5.5 million, the UK one 12 times that. They would never have used their tax revenue in the way we did as it would have crashed the economy. Nor did they have to use it for a transition from a heavy industry economy to a service ecomnomy - mostly because they never had a heavy industry economy in the first place.
In the list of issues facing the country I’m utterly bored of the amount of discussion this topic generates !
If only post-op individuals were being discussed, I think the debate would be much calmer. In fact I doubt there'd ever have been much of a debate.
Unintended consequences has meant that tightening up against abuse has meant safeguarding people who were legitimate.
Glad we’re giving the place a wide berth.
Mackems to thrash the Saudis.
With apologies to the ghost of Anthony Eden.
But I do wonder about the WI; as far as I can see there are normally no situations where whether a "man" was present matters.
Matthew, can you explain the claims you made in the book that I’ve outlined in the below thread?
https://x.com/andytwelves/status/2035669425567744140
It’s not going to take many jobs.
Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs.
The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
I am going to keep saying this: the Tories are underpriced for GE2029.
I get what you're saying. It's nice and clear as I know you like to be. But if you're able to view this as a 'small state socially liberal' position, well that's impressive and you should find out when auditions start for the gymnastics at the next Olympics. Men's gymnastics, I hasten to add. Must have fairness in elite sport.