There were unfair and frankly in a couple of posts insulting comments directed at me over my comments about a conversation on Sky with Sam Coates and Adam Boulton about an e mail about Ollie Robbins sacking
Ultimately I researched Sky news for over an hour and found the clip which I posted on the last thread yesterday evening with the actual words spoken by Boulton
He said 'the e mail suggests that actually the blame levelled at Ollie Robbins is not justified as the system had already approved it'
I was surprised that even this morning @Mexicanpete was raising it even though I had taken the time and effort to find and publish the clip which identifiers the e mail evidence
Posters can argue about interpretation but sadly there is no excuse for trying to discredit a poster who attempts to provide genuine information
Sky news has won numerous awards and is a recognised broadcaster and not known for bias like GB news
Your post said Ollie Robbins had been "exonerated"!!!!!!! This is your basis for that assertion????? Do you at least accept you got that wrong? When you're in a hole stop digging and please stop sharing Sky posts disingenuously.
I said it appears Robbins has been exonerated and you can argue the interpretation of the words by Boulton but he suggested Olly Robbbins was not to blame
I have no intention of either listening to or following your arrogant dictat and will post as I feel fit
Lucy Powell basically saying what all of us know: only Burnham has the numbers and therefore will be the only candidate that stands.
Don't you think Burnham is being presumptuous?
He has to win the by election, then trigger a leadership election (with Starmer resisting I assume).
Things could change, for example another candidate emerging, perhaps it is thought that a women should have a chance?
I mean, he's strong favourite of course but I at these odds (bf)?:
Burnham next Lab leader 1.57 Burnham next PM 1.60 Starmer replaced month by next permanent leader 1.69 (July - Sept 2026) Year Starmer replaced by next permanent leader 1.30 (2026)
I think all the odds above are too short.
Its simple. You need 81 names to challenge the leadership.
No sitting MP has 81 names. Burnham will have more than 81 names - likely a lot more.
Streeting cannot challenge without the names. So unless some MPs decide they really don't like Burnham or want a long drawn out challenge, then you're looking at Burnham having a Few Hundred names triggering a challenge in which there are no candidates other than him and Starmer.
And with more than half the PLP on the Burnham ticket, Starmer will see there no point fighting and will step down.
If 81 wanted Streeting he would have pulled the trigger by now and laughed at the complaints that Saint Andy wasn't able to be nominated yet.
If he did that, he would tick off a huge chunk of the Labour Party.
He might lose anyway, due to that.
And if he won, Burnham would probably become an MP anyway. And would be ready to pounce if things went wrong.
Given the political instincts that he demonstrated in the leaked WhatsApp messages, I think he would be unlikely to take that route.
He might tick them off, but I think it is simpler that he just doesn't have the numbers anyway.
Lucy Powell basically saying what all of us know: only Burnham has the numbers and therefore will be the only candidate that stands.
Don't you think Burnham is being presumptuous?
He has to win the by election, then trigger a leadership election (with Starmer resisting I assume).
Things could change, for example another candidate emerging, perhaps it is thought that a women should have a chance?
I mean, he's strong favourite of course but I at these odds (bf)?:
Burnham next Lab leader 1.57 Burnham next PM 1.60 Starmer replaced month by next permanent leader 1.69 (July - Sept 2026) Year Starmer replaced by next permanent leader 1.30 (2026)
I think all the odds above are too short.
Its simple. You need 81 names to challenge the leadership.
No sitting MP has 81 names. Burnham will have more than 81 names - likely a lot more.
Streeting cannot challenge without the names. So unless some MPs decide they really don't like Burnham or want a long drawn out challenge, then you're looking at Burnham having a Few Hundred names triggering a challenge in which there are no candidates other than him and Starmer.
And with more than half the PLP on the Burnham ticket, Starmer will see there no point fighting and will step down.
Yeah this is right. Starmer won’t fight Burnham.
It will be a one person contest like Brown in 2007.
What a lovely porecedent that is...
I’m sure the king of the north will be up to the same standard in the role.
That isn't fixing it. Murdering arsehole has been convicted and jailed. Justice. Next we need the officers who utterly failed to show concern for their prisoner to face justice. At the very least its a gross failure of their duties
But Farage? He's trying to fan flames to incite a political reaction. For votes, not out of concern.
We need less hate and division in this country, not more.
And what was Starmer doing exactly then he took the knee. Was he doing it for political advantage and votes?
I wouldn't have taken the knee like that. Then again I think there is a world of difference between trying to calm racial tensions and hoping to inflame them.
Again, there's too much hate as it is. Its not our fault that Farage has been outflanked by Rupert Lower, but that doesn't mean that we should just accept a return to open racism because it suits some politicians.
Whats next - pogroms?
It was a white guy who was stabbed...
And Farage is trying to provoke white men by banging on about two-tier policing.
There clearly are questions that need answering as to the conduct of the Police that night. Especially when the victim told them he’d been stabbed, some Plod told him he hadn’t, and said he couldn’t breathe. Repeatedly.
There are questions that need answering. Farage trying to inflame racial tensions is not helping to solve those questions, is it?
If that is actually what is happening, as opposed to highlighting double standards in policing and seeking improvements, I’d condemn that.
Just as I’d condemn the hard left rabble who turned up to a vigil for the victim and shouted abuse at all and sundry.
You’re a very generous man to think Farage is being sincere.
Cyber-gang 'demand £250k ransom from school' - threatening to release AI porn of pupils if it didn't pay
An all-girls school in the north of England has been targeted by criminals who used AI to turn photos featuring dozens of pupils posted online into child sexual abuse material, LBC has been told.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Do you not agree that when it comes to policing, the notion of white privilege still exists despite the error (and many other DEI errors that have been made over the last twenty five years) in the Henry Novak case? I think I am better off being an educated, white, heterosexual male when it comes to any interaction with the police.
The fact that despite Henry's father Peter Novak pleaded for politicians not to add the racial dimension to this tragedy, that is exactly what Farage has done. Unfortunately Philp has also jumped on that bandwagon which is unfortunate. I was listening to Liz Webster whose son Henry was similarly attacked by Asian students and she felt Farage's intervention was despicable.*
It is unfortunate that a number of PB posters are foursquare behind Farage's analysis of the racial element of this tragedy which was perpetrated by an evil criminal.
* My interpretation.
I have not followed what the politicians have said and am mistrustful of their motives for speaking up.
I don't accept a general concept of "white privilege" as justification for adopting a different sort of prejudice or set of assumptions.
What any good investigator has to do is not allow a preconceived assumption to determine their assessment of a situation. This is not easy. Not easy at all. But it is precisely what good training and professionalism - constantly reinforced - have to do.
I rather think that a lot of this has been overlooked or forgotten by the police. Remember what I wrote in 2019 on here following Operation Midland about the police automatically believing victims and how disastrous this is as an approach. Here you go.
Something like that I suspect is happening with the police approach to racism allegations.
The political aspect from Farage (and unfortunately, Philp) is essentially there is a white disadvantage when it comes to policing, which is wholly ludicrous. I don't dispute in this case a massive and tragic front line policing error was made on the word of a lying criminal, but does that necessarily represent DEI going mad?
Operation Midland, I believe, is not comparable other than Carl Beech, like this criminal lied to police. Personally I believe Beech was a Walter Mitty figure who took information ( in some cases) he had read about and spuriously applied this information to himself to create a victim which happened to be Carl Beech. If he had been a more effective lyer there would have been a nice payday for him too.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Do you not agree that when it comes to policing, the notion of white privilege still exists despite the error (and many other DEI errors that have been made over the last twenty five years) in the Henry Novak case? I think I am better off being an educated, white, heterosexual male when it comes to any interaction with the police.
The fact that despite Henry's father Peter Novak pleaded for politicians not to add the racial dimension to this tragedy, that is exactly what Farage has done. Unfortunately Philp has also jumped on that bandwagon which is unfortunate. I was listening to Liz Webster whose son Henry was similarly attacked by Asian students and she felt Farage's intervention was despicable.*
It is unfortunate that a number of PB posters are foursquare behind Farage's analysis of the racial element of this tragedy which was perpetrated by an evil criminal.
* My interpretation.
I have not followed what the politicians have said and am mistrustful of their motives for speaking up.
I don't accept a general concept of "white privilege" as justification for adopting a different sort of prejudice or set of assumptions.
What any good investigator has to do is not allow a preconceived assumption to determine their assessment of a situation. This is not easy. Not easy at all. But it is precisely what good training and professionalism - constantly reinforced - have to do.
I rather think that a lot of this has been overlooked or forgotten by the police. Remember what I wrote in 2019 on here following Operation Midland about the police automatically believing victims and how disastrous this is as an approach. Here you go.
Something like that I suspect is happening with the police approach to racism allegations.
The political aspect from Farage (and unfortunately, Philp) is essentially there is a white disadvantage when it comes to policing, which is wholly ludicrous. I don't dispute in this case a massive and tragic front line policing error was made on the word of a lying criminal, but does that necessarily represent DEI going mad?
I’m obviously not going to talk about it, but imagine if there was a recent series of court cases, many thousands of similar cases all over the country, where there was a clear racial motive to the offences, and the police and other authorities decided to attempt a coverup rather than prosecute them. Hypothetically speaking of course.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
No. In the George Floyd case, Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a police officer. He didn’t happen to die later. He didn’t die because of some other reason.
While Floyd was deemed a threat by the Minnesota police who had to be restrained whereas Nowak was already badly wounded and no threat but was still handcuffed by the Hampshire plods.
This is all just dancing around a pinhead.
The Minnesota police behaved badly and the Hampshire plods behaved badly.
The connection is police misconduct.
And the external issue which has had an impact is the posturing from Starmer about Floyd compared to his indifference about the Nowak.
Lumping both cases together as “behaved badly” is ridiculous. In one case, a police officer murdered someone. In the other case, the police didn’t murder anyone.
They just let him bleed to death...
They did not know at first that he was bleeding. They soon realised their error, but he died before they could do anything about it. At no point did they knowingly let him bleed to death.
They made a mistake, but they’re not responsible for Nowak’s death. The man responsible for Nowak’s death was Vickrum Digwa, who has rightfully received a life sentence.
useless twats should be sacked, guy says I have been bstabbed and the cop says i don't think so, we think you knocked someone's turban off so we will handcuff you as you repeat I cannot breathe. What kind of moron does that.
I've only watched the first series of Clarkson's Farm (I thought it was pretty good), and I was reading this Independent piece on it which is really more a cataloging of Clarkson over the years, and whilst it was decent I thought the concluding line was a bit odd. Maybe I'm missing something, but even if Clarkson and Amazon are just making entertainment and don't really care about farming, how would the show damage farming in general? Unlike the example of Wrexham in football, I cannot imagine Clarkson's farm could disrupt the already fragile agricultural sector on its own.
Yes it’s entertainment, but the reaction from rural communities has been overwhelmingly positive for the show. Farmers really do struggle to balance their books without outside income, and whenever they try to innovate a bunch of jobsworths and professional protestors do their damned best to stop it.
I'd also assume that whether or not Clarkson believes it or is putting it on, farmers know the value of a high profile celebrity bringing up the issues that matter to them a lot.
Exactly!
The people who work his farm on the show, actually work his farm. Yes he can get away with making a loss because TV show, so he’ll do something different with a field every year.
He can afford to be innovative by opening a restaurant full of local produce, at least until the local town boor turned up to the planning committee with a barrister to get it shut down.
He didn't have planning permission and it attracted thousands of moronic Deanos who wanted to visit the Clarkson World theme park so I'm not surprised the council told him to fuck off. They would have been out on their arses at the next election if they hadn't.
So either (a) try to make the countryside make money, bring in visitors who might just use local shops etc or (b) just block everything.
The council chose (b).
Councils often are bound by national policy to refuse things even if they personally don't have an issue with it. They do also set local planning policy of course, which is unlikely to be more permissive than national policy allows, and instead be as restrictive as possible. So it can be partly their fault and partly not depending on the issue.
Now in this case he had a lot of people coming and so it probably was against policy, which generally wants there to be a vibrant countryside economy but not too much actual activity, which would be seen as out of character, the roads not able to take it etc.
As to Dura's point about councillors losing election if they hadn't said no, that is partly why the government is taking away a lot of the power of planning committees (possibly even too much to be honest) - decisions are meant to be made taking account of national and local planning policy, but local politicians still openly make decisions on the basis of 'my residents don't like it', which in itself is not actually enough. They aren't purely democratic exercises and any councillor who says it is is a liar, or a planning officer's worst nightmare who will cost residents tens of thousands more in appeal costs.
It's also silly as residents do not reward you for standing against the local housing development or whatever, if it then gets approved on appeal and built anyway because it was fully compliant with policy. Councillors are meant to exercise discretion where policy allows for judgement calls (eg, does the benefit outweigh the harm? Is the impact reasonable? Is X in character with the area?)
For councillors - half they desire is to stop people calling them out on social media for not standing up against something the voter doesn't like.
One fix would be to simply have items be returned to committee a second time where the consequences of voting can be spelt out (one example round here had the vote changed when costs of £1m was mentioned)
I have seen it happen when a council literally couldn't find anyone willing to defend the reasons for refusal, but it is rare and the consequences are typically spelt out beforehand. Indeed, some councillors don't like being 'bullied' by being told some reasons will almost certainly lose at appeal (typically highways reasons, as local feeling about safety is not sufficient in most cases absent lack of highways officer objection).
It is a fundamental misconception about the role of decision-makers in certain situations, and whether they can take anything into account or not. There are many occasions when very deliberately certain things cannot or must not be taken into account, but many even experienced councillors don't like being told their powers are limited in that respect.
Indeed, the role of councillor in general is not as powerful as many councillors think when it comes to national government setting very firm guardrails. Hence getting a lot of performative motions and unanimity across parties to criticise the government of the day, even if it is your own party.
Lucy Powell basically saying what all of us know: only Burnham has the numbers and therefore will be the only candidate that stands.
Don't you think Burnham is being presumptuous?
He has to win the by election, then trigger a leadership election (with Starmer resisting I assume).
Things could change, for example another candidate emerging, perhaps it is thought that a women should have a chance?
I mean, he's strong favourite of course but I at these odds (bf)?:
Burnham next Lab leader 1.57 Burnham next PM 1.60 Starmer replaced month by next permanent leader 1.69 (July - Sept 2026) Year Starmer replaced by next permanent leader 1.30 (2026)
I think all the odds above are too short.
Its simple. You need 81 names to challenge the leadership.
No sitting MP has 81 names. Burnham will have more than 81 names - likely a lot more.
Streeting cannot challenge without the names. So unless some MPs decide they really don't like Burnham or want a long drawn out challenge, then you're looking at Burnham having a Few Hundred names triggering a challenge in which there are no candidates other than him and Starmer.
And with more than half the PLP on the Burnham ticket, Starmer will see there no point fighting and will step down.
Yeah this is right. Starmer won’t fight Burnham.
It will be a one person contest like Brown in 2007.
What a lovely porecedent that is...
Well Tories will be happy, it means Badenoch is set for Downing Street.
Personally I think Labour will win the next election.
They wont
What are you so sure?
I think Lowe is far more popular that people realise and will split the Reform vote. A massive advantage for Labour which will, I think, be much more of a factor than the Greens splitting the Lab vote. Plus there will be big 'stop Reform' tactical voting.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Do you not agree that when it comes to policing, the notion of white privilege still exists despite the error (and many other DEI errors that have been made over the last twenty five years) in the Henry Novak case? I think I am better off being an educated, white, heterosexual male when it comes to any interaction with the police.
The fact that despite Henry's father Peter Novak pleaded for politicians not to add the racial dimension to this tragedy, that is exactly what Farage has done. Unfortunately Philp has also jumped on that bandwagon which is unfortunate. I was listening to Liz Webster whose son Henry was similarly attacked by Asian students and she felt Farage's intervention was despicable.*
It is unfortunate that a number of PB posters are foursquare behind Farage's analysis of the racial element of this tragedy which was perpetrated by an evil criminal.
* My interpretation.
I have not followed what the politicians have said and am mistrustful of their motives for speaking up.
I don't accept a general concept of "white privilege" as justification for adopting a different sort of prejudice or set of assumptions.
What any good investigator has to do is not allow a preconceived assumption to determine their assessment of a situation. This is not easy. Not easy at all. But it is precisely what good training and professionalism - constantly reinforced - have to do.
I rather think that a lot of this has been overlooked or forgotten by the police. Remember what I wrote in 2019 on here following Operation Midland about the police automatically believing victims and how disastrous this is as an approach. Here you go.
Something like that I suspect is happening with the police approach to racism allegations.
I remember reading the Henriques report - the police pushed back extremely hard against the idea of not just believing 'victims' even when he explained how they were turning burden of proof on its head. I would not be at all surprised if in spirit it was being ignored.
There were unfair and frankly in a couple of posts insulting comments directed at me over my comments about a conversation on Sky with Sam Coates and Adam Boulton about an e mail about Ollie Robbins sacking
Ultimately I researched Sky news for over an hour and found the clip which I posted on the last thread yesterday evening with the actual words spoken by Boulton
He said 'the e mail suggests that actually the blame levelled at Ollie Robbins is not justified as the system had already approved it'
I was surprised that even this morning @Mexicanpete was raising it even though I had taken the time and effort to find and publish the clip which identifiers the e mail evidence
Posters can argue about interpretation but sadly there is no excuse for trying to discredit a poster who attempts to provide genuine information
Sky news has won numerous awards and is a recognised broadcaster and not known for bias like GB news
It’s the usual suspects. Why let it bother you. Remember DougSeal hounded Isam from the site a couple of years back. Don’t give them the power over you 👍
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
Comic Idea Of The Day
After the murder at Magennis' Bar, 71 Shiners gave sworn statements to the police that they had been in the toilets when the killing happened and for hours afterwards.
A 4 foot x 3 foot urinal.
Given that this means a number of women swore that they had invaded the men’s toilets, can they be prosecuted for that?
Lucy Powell basically saying what all of us know: only Burnham has the numbers and therefore will be the only candidate that stands.
Don't you think Burnham is being presumptuous?
He has to win the by election, then trigger a leadership election (with Starmer resisting I assume).
Things could change, for example another candidate emerging, perhaps it is thought that a women should have a chance?
I mean, he's strong favourite of course but I at these odds (bf)?:
Burnham next Lab leader 1.57 Burnham next PM 1.60 Starmer replaced month by next permanent leader 1.69 (July - Sept 2026) Year Starmer replaced by next permanent leader 1.30 (2026)
I think all the odds above are too short.
Its simple. You need 81 names to challenge the leadership.
No sitting MP has 81 names. Burnham will have more than 81 names - likely a lot more.
Streeting cannot challenge without the names. So unless some MPs decide they really don't like Burnham or want a long drawn out challenge, then you're looking at Burnham having a Few Hundred names triggering a challenge in which there are no candidates other than him and Starmer.
And with more than half the PLP on the Burnham ticket, Starmer will see there no point fighting and will step down.
Yeah this is right. Starmer won’t fight Burnham.
It will be a one person contest like Brown in 2007.
What a lovely porecedent that is...
Well Tories will be happy, it means Badenoch is set for Downing Street.
Personally I think Labour will win the next election.
They wont
What are you so sure?
I think Lowe is far more popular that people realise and will split the Reform vote. A massive advantage for Labour which will, I think, be much more of a factor than the Greens splitting the Lab vote. Plus there will be big 'stop Reform' tactical voting.
He may be more popular than people here realise, but even so the ceiling cannot be very high can it? His party are minuscule at the moment (whether they remain so is a separate question) and unless someone is online all the time they first need to be told who Restore are before they can even consider them a viable prospect to vote for, which is a tougher ask than Reform.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Do you not agree that when it comes to policing, the notion of white privilege still exists despite the error (and many other DEI errors that have been made over the last twenty five years) in the Henry Novak case? I think I am better off being an educated, white, heterosexual male when it comes to any interaction with the police.
The fact that despite Henry's father Peter Novak pleaded for politicians not to add the racial dimension to this tragedy, that is exactly what Farage has done. Unfortunately Philp has also jumped on that bandwagon which is unfortunate. I was listening to Liz Webster whose son Henry was similarly attacked by Asian students and she felt Farage's intervention was despicable.*
It is unfortunate that a number of PB posters are foursquare behind Farage's analysis of the racial element of this tragedy which was perpetrated by an evil criminal.
* My interpretation.
I have not followed what the politicians have said and am mistrustful of their motives for speaking up.
I don't accept a general concept of "white privilege" as justification for adopting a different sort of prejudice or set of assumptions.
What any good investigator has to do is not allow a preconceived assumption to determine their assessment of a situation. This is not easy. Not easy at all. But it is precisely what good training and professionalism - constantly reinforced - have to do.
I rather think that a lot of this has been overlooked or forgotten by the police. Remember what I wrote in 2019 on here following Operation Midland about the police automatically believing victims and how disastrous this is as an approach. Here you go.
Something like that I suspect is happening with the police approach to racism allegations.
The political aspect from Farage (and unfortunately, Philp) is essentially there is a white disadvantage when it comes to policing, which is wholly ludicrous. I don't dispute in this case a massive and tragic front line policing error was made on the word of a lying criminal, but does that necessarily represent DEI going mad?
Operation Midland, I believe, is not comparable other than Carl Beech, like this criminal lied to police. Personally I believe Beech was a Walter Mitty figure who took information ( in some cases) he had read about and spuriously applied this information to himself to create a victim which happened to be Carl Beech. If he had been a more effective lyer there would have been a nice payday for him too.
No - because there was not a shred of evidence of anything that he alleged happened actually happened. How could being more effective have helped? When the police finally, after many months, got around to trying to corroborate his claims by asking his wife, things fell apart faster than a dandelion head blown by me three year old.
Could some Latin lovers give me some help, please?
In the Style section of the May 5th New York Times, in "What We Love About the First 'Devil Wears Prada'", I found this sentence:
When [journalist] Andy [Sachs] scoffs at a room of Runway employees choosing between two very similar belts, Miranda soundly decimates her with a monologue about the ubiquitousness and utility of fashion.
I can guess what the Maya Phillips means, but I couldn't help trying to translate what she wrote. The best I could come up with something like this: Miranda gave Andy weight loss surgery, perhaps using ultrasound.
No doubt some of you can do better than that.
It's a reference to the cerulean top monologue/speech. It was inserted for reasons I forget but it's an absolute banger, and one of two great dialogues in the file (the other being Stanley Tucci's advice to Andy - basically "toughen up, buttercup"). The speech is in the YouTube below.
"...oh okay I see you think this has nothing to do with you you go to your closet and you select I don't know that lumpy blue sweater for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back but what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue it's not turquoise it's not lapis it's actually Cerulean you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002 Oscar De La Renta did a collection of Cerulean gowns and then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent wasn't it who showed Cerulean military jackets (I think we need a jacket here) and then Cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers and then it uh filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you no doubt fished it out of some clearance bin. However that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when in fact you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of "stuff..."
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
The reason women's loos have become a focus is that the autogynophiliacs get sexually aroused by being in there. Its not about a simple need to urinate or defecate, its all about their sexual fetish.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I don’t have a daughter. I understand from friends with daughters that their daughters would call them transphobic if they talked like that. There is a strong generational divide here and the daughters generally do not seem to be in agreement with your position, Cyclefree.
Yes true, but only because they have been influenced by trans activists on social media. I have two daughters and they and their peers readily change their view when the full issues are explained to them in a unbiased and factual way.
Or do they roll their eyes and tell you that you are mansplaining?
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I don’t have a daughter. I understand from friends with daughters that their daughters would call them transphobic if they talked like that. There is a strong generational divide here and the daughters generally do not seem to be in agreement with your position, Cyclefree.
Yes true, but only because they have been influenced by trans activists on social media. I have two daughters and they and their peers readily change their view when the full issues are explained to them in a unbiased and factual way.
Or do they roll their eyes and tell you that you are mansplaining?
Lucy Powell basically saying what all of us know: only Burnham has the numbers and therefore will be the only candidate that stands.
Don't you think Burnham is being presumptuous?
He has to win the by election, then trigger a leadership election (with Starmer resisting I assume).
Things could change, for example another candidate emerging, perhaps it is thought that a women should have a chance?
I mean, he's strong favourite of course but I at these odds (bf)?:
Burnham next Lab leader 1.57 Burnham next PM 1.60 Starmer replaced month by next permanent leader 1.69 (July - Sept 2026) Year Starmer replaced by next permanent leader 1.30 (2026)
I think all the odds above are too short.
Its simple. You need 81 names to challenge the leadership.
No sitting MP has 81 names. Burnham will have more than 81 names - likely a lot more.
Streeting cannot challenge without the names. So unless some MPs decide they really don't like Burnham or want a long drawn out challenge, then you're looking at Burnham having a Few Hundred names triggering a challenge in which there are no candidates other than him and Starmer.
And with more than half the PLP on the Burnham ticket, Starmer will see there no point fighting and will step down.
Yeah this is right. Starmer won’t fight Burnham.
It will be a one person contest like Brown in 2007.
What a lovely porecedent that is...
Well Tories will be happy, it means Badenoch is set for Downing Street.
Personally I think Labour will win the next election.
They wont
What are you so sure?
I think Lowe is far more popular that people realise and will split the Reform vote. A massive advantage for Labour which will, I think, be much more of a factor than the Greens splitting the Lab vote. Plus there will be big 'stop Reform' tactical voting.
Is Lowe the beneificiary of those on the right who find Farage a boorish tosser? Are there such people?
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I don’t have a daughter. I understand from friends with daughters that their daughters would call them transphobic if they talked like that. There is a strong generational divide here and the daughters generally do not seem to be in agreement with your position, Cyclefree.
Yes true, but only because they have been influenced by trans activists on social media. I have two daughters and they and their peers readily change their view when the full issues are explained to them in a unbiased and factual way.
It’s a good thing that those who are critical of trans rights have never been influenced by activists on social media.
Indeed. Reality is sufficient when it comes to defending the right of women to single sex spaces and activities.
Lucy Powell basically saying what all of us know: only Burnham has the numbers and therefore will be the only candidate that stands.
Don't you think Burnham is being presumptuous?
He has to win the by election, then trigger a leadership election (with Starmer resisting I assume).
Things could change, for example another candidate emerging, perhaps it is thought that a women should have a chance?
I mean, he's strong favourite of course but I at these odds (bf)?:
Burnham next Lab leader 1.57 Burnham next PM 1.60 Starmer replaced month by next permanent leader 1.69 (July - Sept 2026) Year Starmer replaced by next permanent leader 1.30 (2026)
I think all the odds above are too short.
Its simple. You need 81 names to challenge the leadership.
No sitting MP has 81 names. Burnham will have more than 81 names - likely a lot more.
Streeting cannot challenge without the names. So unless some MPs decide they really don't like Burnham or want a long drawn out challenge, then you're looking at Burnham having a Few Hundred names triggering a challenge in which there are no candidates other than him and Starmer.
And with more than half the PLP on the Burnham ticket, Starmer will see there no point fighting and will step down.
Yeah this is right. Starmer won’t fight Burnham.
It will be a one person contest like Brown in 2007.
What a lovely porecedent that is...
Well Tories will be happy, it means Badenoch is set for Downing Street.
Personally I think Labour will win the next election.
They wont
What are you so sure?
I think Lowe is far more popular that people realise and will split the Reform vote. A massive advantage for Labour which will, I think, be much more of a factor than the Greens splitting the Lab vote. Plus there will be big 'stop Reform' tactical voting.
Is Lowe the beneificiary of those on the right who find Farage a boorish tosser? Are there such people?
Some think Farage is too mainstream (recruiting all the ex-Tories may not help that). Lowe is there for those people - they'd get angry if they actually got more support than Reform, as they'd then be mainstream themselves.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I don’t have a daughter. I understand from friends with daughters that their daughters would call them transphobic if they talked like that. There is a strong generational divide here and the daughters generally do not seem to be in agreement with your position, Cyclefree.
Yes true, but only because they have been influenced by trans activists on social media. I have two daughters and they and their peers readily change their view when the full issues are explained to them in a unbiased and factual way.
Or do they roll their eyes and tell you that you are mansplaining?
Haha.
When it's my wife doing the explaining?
She can get away with it. It's true though, the young women are very anti TERF and pro trans.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I don’t have a daughter. I understand from friends with daughters that their daughters would call them transphobic if they talked like that. There is a strong generational divide here and the daughters generally do not seem to be in agreement with your position, Cyclefree.
Lots of evidence that the last few years trans-wave is in retreat. Social media contagion etc.
I'm not sure that's true (although I am aware of the studies showing trans-identification in US colleges lessening). Even in the UK, where the concept of trans itself has been legally abolished, there are now two trans (or one trans woman and one non-binary person, depending on how you count them) in the Scottish Parliament, a state of affairs that would have been inconcievable twenty years ago.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
Women, know your place. Men are mansplaining feminism to you.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
Not all such people, sure, but the activist group members very much fall into that category, they *want* to make regular women uncomfortable. @cyclefree will probably say that having a penis means you shouldn’t be in the women’s room, which in my mind seems to be a reasonable place to draw the line.
There’s even a medical term for it, autogynephilia, as distinct from gender disphoria.
I've only watched the first series of Clarkson's Farm (I thought it was pretty good), and I was reading this Independent piece on it which is really more a cataloging of Clarkson over the years, and whilst it was decent I thought the concluding line was a bit odd. Maybe I'm missing something, but even if Clarkson and Amazon are just making entertainment and don't really care about farming, how would the show damage farming in general? Unlike the example of Wrexham in football, I cannot imagine Clarkson's farm could disrupt the already fragile agricultural sector on its own.
Yes it’s entertainment, but the reaction from rural communities has been overwhelmingly positive for the show. Farmers really do struggle to balance their books without outside income, and whenever they try to innovate a bunch of jobsworths and professional protestors do their damned best to stop it.
I'd also assume that whether or not Clarkson believes it or is putting it on, farmers know the value of a high profile celebrity bringing up the issues that matter to them a lot.
Exactly!
The people who work his farm on the show, actually work his farm. Yes he can get away with making a loss because TV show, so he’ll do something different with a field every year.
He can afford to be innovative by opening a restaurant full of local produce, at least until the local town boor turned up to the planning committee with a barrister to get it shut down.
He didn't have planning permission and it attracted thousands of moronic Deanos who wanted to visit the Clarkson World theme park so I'm not surprised the council told him to fuck off. They would have been out on their arses at the next election if they hadn't.
So either (a) try to make the countryside make money, bring in visitors who might just use local shops etc or (b) just block everything.
The council chose (b).
That's how local democracy works in rural areas. I will be re-elected to our Parish Council in perpetuity because I promise to block everything, everywhere at all times. Stopping construction of a public barbecue was my personal Austerlitz.
Did anyone do anything about your carport, out of interest?
Lucy Powell basically saying what all of us know: only Burnham has the numbers and therefore will be the only candidate that stands.
Don't you think Burnham is being presumptuous?
He has to win the by election, then trigger a leadership election (with Starmer resisting I assume).
Things could change, for example another candidate emerging, perhaps it is thought that a women should have a chance?
I mean, he's strong favourite of course but I at these odds (bf)?:
Burnham next Lab leader 1.57 Burnham next PM 1.60 Starmer replaced month by next permanent leader 1.69 (July - Sept 2026) Year Starmer replaced by next permanent leader 1.30 (2026)
I think all the odds above are too short.
Its simple. You need 81 names to challenge the leadership.
No sitting MP has 81 names. Burnham will have more than 81 names - likely a lot more.
Streeting cannot challenge without the names. So unless some MPs decide they really don't like Burnham or want a long drawn out challenge, then you're looking at Burnham having a Few Hundred names triggering a challenge in which there are no candidates other than him and Starmer.
And with more than half the PLP on the Burnham ticket, Starmer will see there no point fighting and will step down.
Yeah this is right. Starmer won’t fight Burnham.
It will be a one person contest like Brown in 2007.
What a lovely porecedent that is...
Well Tories will be happy, it means Badenoch is set for Downing Street.
Personally I think Labour will win the next election.
They wont
What are you so sure?
I think Lowe is far more popular that people realise and will split the Reform vote. A massive advantage for Labour which will, I think, be much more of a factor than the Greens splitting the Lab vote. Plus there will be big 'stop Reform' tactical voting.
Is Lowe the beneificiary of those on the right who find Farage a boorish tosser? Are there such people?
Yes but also Lowe's stronger stance on immigration plus suspicions over Farage's associations with crypto/Trump/ dodgy Reform Ltd comp setup etc etc etc. Lowe does not suffer from this. Also, Lowe's work rate in parliament is impressive and Farage is, well, the opposite.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
No. In the George Floyd case, Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a police officer. He didn’t happen to die later. He didn’t die because of some other reason.
While Floyd was deemed a threat by the Minnesota police who had to be restrained whereas Nowak was already badly wounded and no threat but was still handcuffed by the Hampshire plods.
This is all just dancing around a pinhead.
The Minnesota police behaved badly and the Hampshire plods behaved badly.
The connection is police misconduct.
And the external issue which has had an impact is the posturing from Starmer about Floyd compared to his indifference about the Nowak.
Lumping both cases together as “behaved badly” is ridiculous. In one case, a police officer murdered someone. In the other case, the police didn’t murder anyone.
They just let him bleed to death...
They did not know at first that he was bleeding. They soon realised their error, but he died before they could do anything about it. At no point did they knowingly let him bleed to death.
They made a mistake, but they’re not responsible for Nowak’s death. The man responsible for Nowak’s death was Vickrum Digwa, who has rightfully received a life sentence.
useless twats should be sacked, guy says I have been bstabbed and the cop says i don't think so, we think you knocked someone's turban off so we will handcuff you as you repeat I cannot breathe. What kind of moron does that.
The same morons who then seize the victim and his fathers phone to find information/texts/messages to back them up and get them off the hook racists comments.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated. What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
Not all such people, sure, but the activist group members very much fall into that category, they *want* to make regular women uncomfortable. @cyclefree will probably say that having a penis means you shouldn’t be in the women’s room, which in my mind seems to be a reasonable place to draw the line.
There’s even a medical term for it, autogynephilia, as distinct from gender disphoria.
In fairness to m'learned colleague @Cyclefree, she insists that the status of "biological male" is set at birth (conception?) and is not altered by any genital surgery. Your statement seems to believe that trans women without a penis are still allowed in women's toilets. If my preliminary reading ( @RochdalePioneers and @malcolmg asked me to look into it ) is correct, they are not.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
There has been a lot of spin around this (when isn't there). Like the idea that thinking you have been born in the wrong body isn't a mental condition (activists got the UN to change definitions). No-one gets to choose their gender, you are born with it.
Around sexual motivation for cross dressing there has been a similar effort to decouple from sexual desire, to give it the very spin that you have used 'to affirm their gender identity'. Yet sexual offending among trans women is rife. And you can also look at the record of these men when placed into womens prisons to see their true selves come out.
This sort of organised protest at established industries will kill city centres.
It’s Soho, it’s been full of bars and restaurants open all night for decades. If you want a quiet life go live somewhere else.
Same goes for those who move next to the airport, motorsports venue etc. and then think they can start objecting to existing businesses.
When I first bought my flat on Old Compton St the estate agent told me the only downside was the football crowds at week-ends and people ringing the doorbell asking for 'Paperchase'!. Apparently it used to be a collection address for Paperchase!
As it turned out it was a wonderful place to be. The other three residents of the building were all known . One of was Robert Chote another Rachel Johnson and another Firmietta Rocco.
On the ground floor was a peep-show called 'Pussy Galore' which soon became a restaurant and directly opposite was 'The Admiral Duncan' famous for being bombed and twenty yards down the road Grouchos.
Later it became gentrified and the police chased away the last of the girls and it lost a lot of it's charm. Last time I visied there was a coach party of Koreans who were there to look at the original home of the 3I's. They were doing a tour of Rock and Roll in the 60's and it was where Tommy Steele was discovered!
I've only watched the first series of Clarkson's Farm (I thought it was pretty good), and I was reading this Independent piece on it which is really more a cataloging of Clarkson over the years, and whilst it was decent I thought the concluding line was a bit odd. Maybe I'm missing something, but even if Clarkson and Amazon are just making entertainment and don't really care about farming, how would the show damage farming in general? Unlike the example of Wrexham in football, I cannot imagine Clarkson's farm could disrupt the already fragile agricultural sector on its own.
Yes it’s entertainment, but the reaction from rural communities has been overwhelmingly positive for the show. Farmers really do struggle to balance their books without outside income, and whenever they try to innovate a bunch of jobsworths and professional protestors do their damned best to stop it.
I'd also assume that whether or not Clarkson believes it or is putting it on, farmers know the value of a high profile celebrity bringing up the issues that matter to them a lot.
Exactly!
The people who work his farm on the show, actually work his farm. Yes he can get away with making a loss because TV show, so he’ll do something different with a field every year.
He can afford to be innovative by opening a restaurant full of local produce, at least until the local town boor turned up to the planning committee with a barrister to get it shut down.
He didn't have planning permission and it attracted thousands of moronic Deanos who wanted to visit the Clarkson World theme park so I'm not surprised the council told him to fuck off. They would have been out on their arses at the next election if they hadn't.
So either (a) try to make the countryside make money, bring in visitors who might just use local shops etc or (b) just block everything.
The council chose (b).
Councils often are bound by national policy to refuse things even if they personally don't have an issue with it. They do also set local planning policy of course, which is unlikely to be more permissive than national policy allows, and instead be as restrictive as possible. So it can be partly their fault and partly not depending on the issue.
Now in this case he had a lot of people coming and so it probably was against policy, which generally wants there to be a vibrant countryside economy but not too much actual activity, which would be seen as out of character, the roads not able to take it etc.
As to Dura's point about councillors losing election if they hadn't said no, that is partly why the government is taking away a lot of the power of planning committees (possibly even too much to be honest) - decisions are meant to be made taking account of national and local planning policy, but local politicians still openly make decisions on the basis of 'my residents don't like it', which in itself is not actually enough. They aren't purely democratic exercises and any councillor who says it is is a liar, or a planning officer's worst nightmare who will cost residents tens of thousands more in appeal costs.
It's also silly as residents do not reward you for standing against the local housing development or whatever, if it then gets approved on appeal and built anyway because it was fully compliant with policy. Councillors are meant to exercise discretion where policy allows for judgement calls (eg, does the benefit outweigh the harm? Is the impact reasonable? Is X in character with the area?)
For councillors - half they desire is to stop people calling them out on social media for not standing up against something the voter doesn't like.
One fix would be to simply have items be returned to committee a second time where the consequences of voting can be spelt out (one example round here had the vote changed when costs of £1m was mentioned)
I have seen it happen when a council literally couldn't find anyone willing to defend the reasons for refusal, but it is rare and the consequences are typically spelt out beforehand. Indeed, some councillors don't like being 'bullied' by being told some reasons will almost certainly lose at appeal (typically highways reasons, as local feeling about safety is not sufficient in most cases absent lack of highways officer objection).
It is a fundamental misconception about the role of decision-makers in certain situations, and whether they can take anything into account or not. There are many occasions when very deliberately certain things cannot or must not be taken into account, but many even experienced councillors don't like being told their powers are limited in that respect.
Indeed, the role of councillor in general is not as powerful as many councillors think when it comes to national government setting very firm guardrails. Hence getting a lot of performative motions and unanimity across parties to criticise the government of the day, even if it is your own party.
The Planning system is complex with Delegated Powers and you can even have one part of a Council objecting to a planning proposal submitted by another part.
Part of the process involves discussions between planning officers and developers - some may think the system is wholly adversarial, it isn't. The Developer has the Local Plan and knows where the lines in terms of densities and housing types exist and if they need to challenge those to turn a buck on the development, that happens in those discussions.
The Officers might recommend approving a slightly denser development in exchange for a more generous or specific Section 106 payment.
There is a right of consultation and local residents have a right to object and simply saying "it's in the national interest" is a cop out. My experience is very few object outright to any development - most concerns raised are about noise during construction, vehicular access, pressure on local infrastructure and proposed numbers and densities of dwellings. These concerns should be taken into account and not just ridden roughshod over to justify some "build, build, build" mantra.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated. What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
Not all such people, sure, but the activist group members very much fall into that category, they *want* to make regular women uncomfortable. @cyclefree will probably say that having a penis means you shouldn’t be in the women’s room, which in my mind seems to be a reasonable place to draw the line.
There’s even a medical term for it, autogynephilia, as distinct from gender disphoria.
In fairness to m'learned colleague @Cyclefree, she insists that the status of "biological male" is set at birth (conception?) and is not altered by any genital surgery. Your statement seems to believe that trans women without a penis are still allowed in women's toilets. If my preliminary reading ( @RochdalePioneers and @malcolmg asked me to look into it ) is correct, they are not.
Personally believe that you are what your genes say you are.* Doesn't matter if you've had the old man chopped off, or inverted or if you've had some arm flesh shaped into a sausage.
*Waits for the inevitable "but what about intersex?"
There were unfair and frankly in a couple of posts insulting comments directed at me over my comments about a conversation on Sky with Sam Coates and Adam Boulton about an e mail about Ollie Robbins sacking
Ultimately I researched Sky news for over an hour and found the clip which I posted on the last thread yesterday evening with the actual words spoken by Boulton
He said 'the e mail suggests that actually the blame levelled at Ollie Robbins is not justified as the system had already approved it'
I was surprised that even this morning @Mexicanpete was raising it even though I had taken the time and effort to find and publish the clip which identifiers the e mail evidence
Posters can argue about interpretation but sadly there is no excuse for trying to discredit a poster who attempts to provide genuine information
Sky news has won numerous awards and is a recognised broadcaster and not known for bias like GB news
Your post said Ollie Robbins had been "exonerated"!!!!!!! This is your basis for that assertion????? Do you at least accept you got that wrong? When you're in a hole stop digging and please stop sharing Sky posts disingenuously.
I said it appears Robbins has been exonerated and you can argue the interpretation of the words by Boulton but he suggested Olly Robbbins was not to blame
I have no intention of either listening to or following your arrogant dictat and will post as I feel fit
It is not for you to tell posters what to post
Firstly, apologies for triggering a pile-on yesterday, I was genuinely interested in what the evidence was.
Jim_the_Lurker posted a link to the evidence released, I don't know what Boulton thought "suggested" Robbins was exonerated but looking through the first part there is no pertinent email from Robbins contemporaneous to the vetting, there are only emails from Robbins from September after Mandelson had been dismissed. These are in response to the "How/Why did he pass vetting?" so are arse-covering as you'd expect. The link to the files is here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/update-on-the-government-response-to-the-humble-address-motion This is what Smith gave evidence on, as per her testimony there doesn't seem to be anything that exonerates Robbins but have at it.
I don't think Boulton and Coates are necessarily reliable as they'd set their narrative from when Robbins gave evidence and as well-evidenced media outlets are reluctant to change their narrative, particularly when disputing it requires considerable wading through tedious emails.
Although the first 40 odd pages are interesting reading for what appears to be an attempt to avoid Developed Vetting by Collard and other senior civil servants which is resisted by the redacted Junior Civil Servant(s), 'my understanding is that it should be subject to DV but "happy to be overruled"' - which I'm sure most PBers would interpret as "you'll have to issue a direct instruction in writing".
I've only watched the first series of Clarkson's Farm (I thought it was pretty good), and I was reading this Independent piece on it which is really more a cataloging of Clarkson over the years, and whilst it was decent I thought the concluding line was a bit odd. Maybe I'm missing something, but even if Clarkson and Amazon are just making entertainment and don't really care about farming, how would the show damage farming in general? Unlike the example of Wrexham in football, I cannot imagine Clarkson's farm could disrupt the already fragile agricultural sector on its own.
Yes it’s entertainment, but the reaction from rural communities has been overwhelmingly positive for the show. Farmers really do struggle to balance their books without outside income, and whenever they try to innovate a bunch of jobsworths and professional protestors do their damned best to stop it.
I'd also assume that whether or not Clarkson believes it or is putting it on, farmers know the value of a high profile celebrity bringing up the issues that matter to them a lot.
Exactly!
The people who work his farm on the show, actually work his farm. Yes he can get away with making a loss because TV show, so he’ll do something different with a field every year.
He can afford to be innovative by opening a restaurant full of local produce, at least until the local town boor turned up to the planning committee with a barrister to get it shut down.
He didn't have planning permission and it attracted thousands of moronic Deanos who wanted to visit the Clarkson World theme park so I'm not surprised the council told him to fuck off. They would have been out on their arses at the next election if they hadn't.
So either (a) try to make the countryside make money, bring in visitors who might just use local shops etc or (b) just block everything.
The council chose (b).
That's how local democracy works in rural areas. I will be re-elected to our Parish Council in perpetuity because I promise to block everything, everywhere at all times. Stopping construction of a public barbecue was my personal Austerlitz.
Did anyone do anything about your carport, out of interest?
Nope. Nobody can see it from the road. I guess they could spot it with a drone if they could be arsed and my marksmanship wasn't up to par.
I've done fucking loads to this house without a sniff of planning permission or any regard to its listed status. I'm not stupid or venal enough to turn it into a public attraction so it'll never matter.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
There has been a lot of spin around this (when isn't there). Like the idea that thinking you have been born in the wrong body isn't a mental condition (activists got the UN to change definitions). No-one gets to choose their gender, you are born with it.
Around sexual motivation for cross dressing there has been a similar effort to decouple from sexual desire, to give it the very spin that you have used 'to affirm their gender identity'. Yet sexual offending among trans women is rife. And you can also look at the record of these men when placed into womens prisons to see their true selves come out.
What's your evidence that sexual offending among trans women is rife? (Not anecdote, please.)
There’s even a medical term for it, autogynephilia, as distinct from gender disphoria.
"autogynephilia" refers to a misdirected sex-target development (a fetish) which makes the person desire to be the target gender instead of having sex with the target gender. It does not refer to the degree of surgery undertaken.
"gender dysphoria" (not disphoria, a word that does not exist) is an awkward one because I think there are multiple definitions flying around. In the context you used it it would refer to discomfort with the presence of the penis and a desire to remove it (which would technically make it "sex dysphoria" if you use the word "sex" to refer to the penis, not "gender dysphoria"). That is not the only definition, which should be obvious when you consider that "sex" and "gender" now describe different things.
So your sentence ("There’s even a medical term for it, autogynephilia, as distinct from gender disphoria") doesn't make sense, since the former refers to a motive and the latter a desire for penis surgery.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I don’t have a daughter. I understand from friends with daughters that their daughters would call them transphobic if they talked like that. There is a strong generational divide here and the daughters generally do not seem to be in agreement with your position, Cyclefree.
Lots of evidence that the last few years trans-wave is in retreat. Social media contagion etc.
I'm not sure that's true (although I am aware of the studies showing trans-identification in US colleges lessening). Even in the UK, where the concept of trans itself has been legally abolished, there are now two trans (or one trans woman and one non-binary person, depending on how you count them) in the Scottish Parliament, a state of affairs that would have been inconcievable twenty years ago.
I don't think that word is spelled the way you think it is...
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated. What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
Not all such people, sure, but the activist group members very much fall into that category, they *want* to make regular women uncomfortable. @cyclefree will probably say that having a penis means you shouldn’t be in the women’s room, which in my mind seems to be a reasonable place to draw the line.
There’s even a medical term for it, autogynephilia, as distinct from gender disphoria.
In fairness to m'learned colleague @Cyclefree, she insists that the status of "biological male" is set at birth (conception?) and is not altered by any genital surgery. Your statement seems to believe that trans women without a penis are still allowed in women's toilets. If my preliminary reading ( @RochdalePioneers and @malcolmg asked me to look into it ) is correct, they are not.
Personally believe that you are what your genes say you are.* Doesn't matter if you've had the old man chopped off, or inverted or if you've had some arm flesh shaped into a sausage.
*Waits for the inevitable "but what about intersex?"
I agree that "genetic male" should replace "biological male", since the former is tightly defined and the latter is not, and the status can be clearly established by a swab if not visually. I am not sure it should be used to define the status of a person now, but that's a separate issue.
The disadvantage of the term "biological male" can be discerned from @Sandpit's belief that a man who has had his penis destroyed by surgery is not a "biological male".
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
There has been a lot of spin around this (when isn't there). Like the idea that thinking you have been born in the wrong body isn't a mental condition (activists got the UN to change definitions). No-one gets to choose their gender, you are born with it.
Around sexual motivation for cross dressing there has been a similar effort to decouple from sexual desire, to give it the very spin that you have used 'to affirm their gender identity'. Yet sexual offending among trans women is rife. And you can also look at the record of these men when placed into womens prisons to see their true selves come out.
What's your evidence that sexual offending among trans women is rife? (Not anecdote, please.)
I don't have time to dig into the data - feel free to do so and correct me if you like. The multiple of anecdote is of course data and there are LOTS of anecdotes (or rather prosecutions). Of course 'rife' is a tricky word. What does it actually mean in scientific terms?
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I don’t have a daughter. I understand from friends with daughters that their daughters would call them transphobic if they talked like that. There is a strong generational divide here and the daughters generally do not seem to be in agreement with your position, Cyclefree.
Lots of evidence that the last few years trans-wave is in retreat. Social media contagion etc.
I'm not sure that's true (although I am aware of the studies showing trans-identification in US colleges lessening). Even in the UK, where the concept of trans itself has been legally abolished, there are now two trans (or one trans woman and one non-binary person, depending on how you count them) in the Scottish Parliament, a state of affairs that would have been inconcievable twenty years ago.
I don't think that word is spelled the way you think it is...
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated. What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
Not all such people, sure, but the activist group members very much fall into that category, they *want* to make regular women uncomfortable. @cyclefree will probably say that having a penis means you shouldn’t be in the women’s room, which in my mind seems to be a reasonable place to draw the line.
There’s even a medical term for it, autogynephilia, as distinct from gender disphoria.
In fairness to m'learned colleague @Cyclefree, she insists that the status of "biological male" is set at birth (conception?) and is not altered by any genital surgery. Your statement seems to believe that trans women without a penis are still allowed in women's toilets. If my preliminary reading ( @RochdalePioneers and @malcolmg asked me to look into it ) is correct, they are not.
Personally believe that you are what your genes say you are.* Doesn't matter if you've had the old man chopped off, or inverted or if you've had some arm flesh shaped into a sausage.
*Waits for the inevitable "but what about intersex?"
I agree that "genetic male" should replace "biological male", since the former is tightly defined and the latter is not, and the status can be clearly established by a swab if not visually. I am not sure it should be used to define the status of a person now, but that's a separate issue.
The disadvantage of the term "biological male" can be discerned from @Sandpit's belief that a man who has had his penis destroyed by surgery is not a "biological male".
There is an old war film trope wear a man gets wounded in a certain area and asks his mate to check on his 'old man' And of course there are circumstances were the old man is amputated, of wounded and the man is still a man and still wishes to be a man. I met someone who faced having the larger part of his penis removed (cannot recall exactly why, but he was distraught because his girlfriend was said (by him) to be a gorgeous blond).
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
There has been a lot of spin around this (when isn't there). Like the idea that thinking you have been born in the wrong body isn't a mental condition (activists got the UN to change definitions). No-one gets to choose their gender, you are born with it.
Around sexual motivation for cross dressing there has been a similar effort to decouple from sexual desire, to give it the very spin that you have used 'to affirm their gender identity'. Yet sexual offending among trans women is rife. And you can also look at the record of these men when placed into womens prisons to see their true selves come out.
What's your evidence that sexual offending among trans women is rife? (Not anecdote, please.)
I don't have time to dig into the data - feel free to do so and correct me if you like. The multiple of anecdote is of course data and there are LOTS of anecdotes (or rather prosecutions). Of course 'rife' is a tricky word. What does it actually mean in scientific terms?
The Origin Story podcast has 2 episodes on JK Rowling, and episode 2, https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/j-k-rowling-part-two-transparent/id1624704966?i=1000768586929 , tackled a number of talking points relevant here. They describe a much cited Swedish paper, used by gender critical activists to argue that transwomen have the same offending rates as cismen, and thus much higher offending rates than ciswomen. They also point out the limitations with the study. But even if you take that paper at face value, it isn't, AIUI, saying the same as your claim here.
I am not aware of any evidence that supports your claim here.
There were unfair and frankly in a couple of posts insulting comments directed at me over my comments about a conversation on Sky with Sam Coates and Adam Boulton about an e mail about Ollie Robbins sacking
Ultimately I researched Sky news for over an hour and found the clip which I posted on the last thread yesterday evening with the actual words spoken by Boulton
He said 'the e mail suggests that actually the blame levelled at Ollie Robbins is not justified as the system had already approved it'
I was surprised that even this morning @Mexicanpete was raising it even though I had taken the time and effort to find and publish the clip which identifiers the e mail evidence
Posters can argue about interpretation but sadly there is no excuse for trying to discredit a poster who attempts to provide genuine information
Sky news has won numerous awards and is a recognised broadcaster and not known for bias like GB news
Your post said Ollie Robbins had been "exonerated"!!!!!!! This is your basis for that assertion????? Do you at least accept you got that wrong? When you're in a hole stop digging and please stop sharing Sky posts disingenuously.
I said it appears Robbins has been exonerated and you can argue the interpretation of the words by Boulton but he suggested Olly Robbbins was not to blame
I have no intention of either listening to or following your arrogant dictat and will post as I feel fit
It is not for you to tell posters what to post
Firstly, apologies for triggering a pile-on yesterday, I was genuinely interested in what the evidence was.
Jim_the_Lurker posted a link to the evidence released, I don't know what Boulton thought "suggested" Robbins was exonerated but looking through the first part there is no pertinent email from Robbins contemporaneous to the vetting, there are only emails from Robbins from September after Mandelson had been dismissed. These are in response to the "How/Why did he pass vetting?" so are arse-covering as you'd expect. The link to the files is here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/update-on-the-government-response-to-the-humble-address-motion This is what Smith gave evidence on, as per her testimony there doesn't seem to be anything that exonerates Robbins but have at it.
I don't think Boulton and Coates are necessarily reliable as they'd set their narrative from when Robbins gave evidence and as well-evidenced media outlets are reluctant to change their narrative, particularly when disputing it requires considerable wading through tedious emails.
Although the first 40 odd pages are interesting reading for what appears to be an attempt to avoid Developed Vetting by Collard and other senior civil servants which is resisted by the redacted Junior Civil Servant(s), 'my understanding is that it should be subject to DV but "happy to be overruled"' - which I'm sure most PBers would interpret as "you'll have to issue a direct instruction in writing".
The specific discussion is in the YouTube I posted with Coates and Boulton discussing a specific e mail shown on the screen where Boulton said this e mail suggest Robbins was not to blame.
I said the exchange appears to exonerate Robbins and you can play on words but the pile on was unacceptable, though not from you, with one poster suggesting I had virtually made it up
Some on this forum have in the past hounded posters to the point they left and that is not acceptable but I am not going anywhere and will continue to post as I think it is relevant
I've only watched the first series of Clarkson's Farm (I thought it was pretty good), and I was reading this Independent piece on it which is really more a cataloging of Clarkson over the years, and whilst it was decent I thought the concluding line was a bit odd. Maybe I'm missing something, but even if Clarkson and Amazon are just making entertainment and don't really care about farming, how would the show damage farming in general? Unlike the example of Wrexham in football, I cannot imagine Clarkson's farm could disrupt the already fragile agricultural sector on its own.
Yes it’s entertainment, but the reaction from rural communities has been overwhelmingly positive for the show. Farmers really do struggle to balance their books without outside income, and whenever they try to innovate a bunch of jobsworths and professional protestors do their damned best to stop it.
I'd also assume that whether or not Clarkson believes it or is putting it on, farmers know the value of a high profile celebrity bringing up the issues that matter to them a lot.
Exactly!
The people who work his farm on the show, actually work his farm. Yes he can get away with making a loss because TV show, so he’ll do something different with a field every year.
He can afford to be innovative by opening a restaurant full of local produce, at least until the local town boor turned up to the planning committee with a barrister to get it shut down.
He didn't have planning permission and it attracted thousands of moronic Deanos who wanted to visit the Clarkson World theme park so I'm not surprised the council told him to fuck off. They would have been out on their arses at the next election if they hadn't.
So either (a) try to make the countryside make money, bring in visitors who might just use local shops etc or (b) just block everything.
The council chose (b).
Councils often are bound by national policy to refuse things even if they personally don't have an issue with it. They do also set local planning policy of course, which is unlikely to be more permissive than national policy allows, and instead be as restrictive as possible. So it can be partly their fault and partly not depending on the issue.
Now in this case he had a lot of people coming and so it probably was against policy, which generally wants there to be a vibrant countryside economy but not too much actual activity, which would be seen as out of character, the roads not able to take it etc.
As to Dura's point about councillors losing election if they hadn't said no, that is partly why the government is taking away a lot of the power of planning committees (possibly even too much to be honest) - decisions are meant to be made taking account of national and local planning policy, but local politicians still openly make decisions on the basis of 'my residents don't like it', which in itself is not actually enough. They aren't purely democratic exercises and any councillor who says it is is a liar, or a planning officer's worst nightmare who will cost residents tens of thousands more in appeal costs.
It's also silly as residents do not reward you for standing against the local housing development or whatever, if it then gets approved on appeal and built anyway because it was fully compliant with policy. Councillors are meant to exercise discretion where policy allows for judgement calls (eg, does the benefit outweigh the harm? Is the impact reasonable? Is X in character with the area?)
For councillors - half they desire is to stop people calling them out on social media for not standing up against something the voter doesn't like.
One fix would be to simply have items be returned to committee a second time where the consequences of voting can be spelt out (one example round here had the vote changed when costs of £1m was mentioned)
I have seen it happen when a council literally couldn't find anyone willing to defend the reasons for refusal, but it is rare and the consequences are typically spelt out beforehand. Indeed, some councillors don't like being 'bullied' by being told some reasons will almost certainly lose at appeal (typically highways reasons, as local feeling about safety is not sufficient in most cases absent lack of highways officer objection).
It is a fundamental misconception about the role of decision-makers in certain situations, and whether they can take anything into account or not. There are many occasions when very deliberately certain things cannot or must not be taken into account, but many even experienced councillors don't like being told their powers are limited in that respect.
Indeed, the role of councillor in general is not as powerful as many councillors think when it comes to national government setting very firm guardrails. Hence getting a lot of performative motions and unanimity across parties to criticise the government of the day, even if it is your own party.
The Planning system is complex with Delegated Powers and you can even have one part of a Council objecting to a planning proposal submitted by another part.
Part of the process involves discussions between planning officers and developers - some may think the system is wholly adversarial, it isn't. The Developer has the Local Plan and knows where the lines in terms of densities and housing types exist and if they need to challenge those to turn a buck on the development, that happens in those discussions.
The Officers might recommend approving a slightly denser development in exchange for a more generous or specific Section 106 payment.
There is a right of consultation and local residents have a right to object and simply saying "it's in the national interest" is a cop out. My experience is very few object outright to any development - most concerns raised are about noise during construction, vehicular access, pressure on local infrastructure and proposed numbers and densities of dwellings. These concerns should be taken into account and not just ridden roughshod over to justify some "build, build, build" mantra.
You are correct different parts of a council can have different views, a planning officer's job is very hard to balance local and national policy, and where some bits are more compliant, or not, than others, and developers spend a lot of time trying to accommodate concerns.
We aren't going to agree on this, as my experience (which is pretty significant) is that a great many people object outright to development, as 1) their official reasons for objection are often incredibly flimsy or irrelevant and 2) when one falls they always come up with another. The objections are, sadly, very often pretextual.
I don't think 'it's in the national interest' is a cop out either. Governments make decisions in the national interest all the time, because sometimes things are needed. We may not agree on what is, but it is not unreasonable for governments to decide some things are seen as more important than 'It will be noisy during construction', which I'm surprised you've included as it is a completely trivial complaint by definition of limited duration and so worth the cost.
The government was proposing that when there is outline permission that the full permission was then always delegated, because I assure you people do try to fight the principle afterwards, which is an example of a totally illegitimate objection which people still engage in because they don't want any building, not that they dislike it a bit. The government has, to my mind fairly, compromised and said it can still be decided by committee, where it is a phased development, as that will generally mean a very large site where the issues can be sufficiently significant and complex as to justify continuing objection.
I go back to a classic example I've seen of a parish council stating that young people would be out of character for their village as a reason for objecting. I've listed dozens of similar cases in the past, and though I know we disagree on this point, it means I do not give the benefit of the doubt to people not being simply opposed completely.
Lastly, the planning system already emphasises peoples' concerns a lot, and consultation will continue to exist to enable people to do so - as will committees for significant matters. So the presentation of changing the balance to make it a bit easier as 'build build build' is a simply false. You're essentially suggesting any adjustment is unfair. Presumption in favour of sustainable development is already a thing in many cases, and is one of the most unpopular things with local people.
That you think modest changes are 'build build build' demonstrates how big a problem we have. Believe me, the 'build build build' gang would go a lot lot further than 'national scheme of delegation'.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
There has been a lot of spin around this (when isn't there). Like the idea that thinking you have been born in the wrong body isn't a mental condition (activists got the UN to change definitions). No-one gets to choose their gender, you are born with it.
Around sexual motivation for cross dressing there has been a similar effort to decouple from sexual desire, to give it the very spin that you have used 'to affirm their gender identity'. Yet sexual offending among trans women is rife. And you can also look at the record of these men when placed into womens prisons to see their true selves come out.
What's your evidence that sexual offending among trans women is rife? (Not anecdote, please.)
The Daily Mail will look at stats that say 60% of trans women in prison are there for sexual offences.
There’s a lot going on behind the scenes there though, such as a small sample group, and the number of such offenders who never mentioned being transgender until after they found themselves in the justice system.
It seems to be something she is genuinely passionate about and was able to speak with decent force and clarity on, whilst presenting a distinction from Reform.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
There has been a lot of spin around this (when isn't there). Like the idea that thinking you have been born in the wrong body isn't a mental condition (activists got the UN to change definitions). No-one gets to choose their gender, you are born with it.
Around sexual motivation for cross dressing there has been a similar effort to decouple from sexual desire, to give it the very spin that you have used 'to affirm their gender identity'. Yet sexual offending among trans women is rife. And you can also look at the record of these men when placed into womens prisons to see their true selves come out.
What's your evidence that sexual offending among trans women is rife? (Not anecdote, please.)
I don't have time to dig into the data - feel free to do so and correct me if you like. The multiple of anecdote is of course data and there are LOTS of anecdotes (or rather prosecutions). Of course 'rife' is a tricky word. What does it actually mean in scientific terms?
The Origin Story podcast has 2 episodes on JK Rowling, and episode 2, https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/j-k-rowling-part-two-transparent/id1624704966?i=1000768586929 , tackled a number of talking points relevant here. They describe a much cited Swedish paper, used by gender critical activists to argue that transwomen have the same offending rates as cismen, and thus much higher offending rates than ciswomen. They also point out the limitations with the study. But even if you take that paper at face value, it isn't, AIUI, saying the same as your claim here.
I am not aware of any evidence that supports your claim here.
Depends how you define rife, doesn't it? Also I would note that times have changed recently. We have moved from trans being a somewhat niche thing to something that became a social media contagion. Note all the celebrities endorsing and validating and indeed how many have trans children. Arguably the recent rise in autogynophiles may well lead to an increase in sexual offending in time, but it is a recent phenomonen.
Lucy Powell basically saying what all of us know: only Burnham has the numbers and therefore will be the only candidate that stands.
Don't you think Burnham is being presumptuous?
He has to win the by election, then trigger a leadership election (with Starmer resisting I assume).
Things could change, for example another candidate emerging, perhaps it is thought that a women should have a chance?
I mean, he's strong favourite of course but I at these odds (bf)?:
Burnham next Lab leader 1.57 Burnham next PM 1.60 Starmer replaced month by next permanent leader 1.69 (July - Sept 2026) Year Starmer replaced by next permanent leader 1.30 (2026)
I think all the odds above are too short.
Its simple. You need 81 names to challenge the leadership.
No sitting MP has 81 names. Burnham will have more than 81 names - likely a lot more.
Streeting cannot challenge without the names. So unless some MPs decide they really don't like Burnham or want a long drawn out challenge, then you're looking at Burnham having a Few Hundred names triggering a challenge in which there are no candidates other than him and Starmer.
And with more than half the PLP on the Burnham ticket, Starmer will see there no point fighting and will step down.
Yeah this is right. Starmer won’t fight Burnham.
It will be a one person contest like Brown in 2007.
What a lovely porecedent that is...
Well Tories will be happy, it means Badenoch is set for Downing Street.
Personally I think Labour will win the next election.
They wont
What are you so sure?
I think Lowe is far more popular that people realise and will split the Reform vote. A massive advantage for Labour which will, I think, be much more of a factor than the Greens splitting the Lab vote. Plus there will be big 'stop Reform' tactical voting.
Is Lowe the beneificiary of those on the right who find Farage a boorish tosser? Are there such people?
How about all right-thinking individuals. Do they count?
It seems to be something she is genuinely passionate about and was able to speak with decent force and clarity on, whilst presenting a distinction from Reform.
Yes she articulated a good response and made a distinct position. More of that please.
I'm not sure which mob Zia Yusef is connected with but someone like that would persuade me to vote Tory to ensure he got nowhere near power. A trully nasty piece of work. Does anyone here have anything good to say about him? God help the UK if that's what passes as a British politician
There is a right of consultation and local residents have a right to object and simply saying "it's in the national interest" is a cop out. My experience is very few object outright to any development - most concerns raised are about noise during construction, vehicular access, pressure on local infrastructure and proposed numbers and densities of dwellings. These concerns should be taken into account and not just ridden roughshod over to justify some "build, build, build" mantra.
Having sat on a Planning Committee I found it odd just how many Councillors couldn’t or refused to accept that it was Quasijudical.
You are there to make a decision based on planning law, Council Policy and evidence: the merits of the application and if it meets the criteria.
It’s effectively the same as sitting on the Bench at a trial in a Sheriff Court.
You can’t convict without evidence just because you think someone’s dodgy any more than let them off if the public gallery is full of their mates.
Often people would cite the number of objections but we way them based on merit not volume.
As one planner once said to me;
“It’s a bit like an exam; There are right and wrong answers and if you get 30 answers and only 4 are right you don’t turn round and say they are wrong because of the other 26!”
There is a right of consultation and local residents have a right to object and simply saying "it's in the national interest" is a cop out. My experience is very few object outright to any development - most concerns raised are about noise during construction, vehicular access, pressure on local infrastructure and proposed numbers and densities of dwellings. These concerns should be taken into account and not just ridden roughshod over to justify some "build, build, build" mantra.
Having sat on a Planning Committee I found it odd just how many Councillors couldn’t or refused to accept that it was Quasijudical.
You are there to make a decision based on planning law, Council Policy and evidence: the merits of the application and if it meets the criteria.
It’s effectively the same as sitting on the Bench at a trial in a Sheriff Court.
You can’t convict without evidence just because you think someone’s dodgy any more than let them off if the public gallery is full of their mates.
Often people would cite the number of objections but we way them based on merit not volume.
As one planner once said to me;
“It’s a bit like an exam; There are right and wrong answers and if you get 30 answers and only 4 are right you don’t turn round and say they are wrong because of the other 26!”
I'm not sure which mob Zia Yusef is connected with but someone like that would persuade me to vote Tory to ensure he got nowhere near power. A trully nasty piece of work. Does anyone here have anything good to say about him? God help the UK if that's what passes as a British politician
What's your evidence that sexual offending among trans women is rife? (Not anecdote, please.)
The ratio of A/B is considerably greater for trans women than for cis women or cis men. This is where
A = the number of people in type X in prison for a sex offence
B = the number of people in type X in the population
But in all cases A/B is quite small, if we define "quite small" as "less than 5%".
So from the statistics it is true to say that "the proportion of trans women in prison for sex offences is considerably larger than the proportion for cis women or cis men" but it is not true to say that "sexual offending among trans women is rife"
Honour also prompts me to point out that the figures are affected by people who claim a trans identity after arrest, although as I don't have a solid figure for this I can't use it.
(Incidentally by same coin the number of non-binary sex offenders is zero)
I'm not sure which mob Zia Yusef is connected with but someone like that would persuade me to vote Tory to ensure he got nowhere near power. A trully nasty piece of work. Does anyone here have anything good to say about him? God help the UK if that's what passes as a British politician
I don't know if it is his official role in the Reform leadership, but he certainly seems to see it as his role to be the unpleasant troll of the group. So unfortunately by responding and getting angry at him we're probably doing what they want for some reason, as he goes out of his way to be unpleasant, whereas though a lot of people dislike Farage he likes to present a more avuncular image.
That’s because, unlike other persistent pollutants such as PCBs and DDT, Pfas are highly surface active: attracted to the interface between water and air. A bubble travelling through seawater “harvests” Pfas towards it, Sha says, and in any given sample of seawater the seafoam floating above it would be expected to contain more Pfas than the water itself.
“Once airborne in bubbles or spray, the chemicals can then travel hundreds of kilometres in days,” says Sha. Pfas used far away could, once in the ocean, accumulate in Fair Isle – in such high proportions because the island is often exposed to stormy seaspray and is so small..
What's your evidence that sexual offending among trans women is rife? (Not anecdote, please.)
The ratio of A/B is considerably greater for trans women than for cis women or cis men. This is where
A = the number of people in type X in prison for a sex offence
B = the number of people in type X in the population
But in all cases A/B is quite small, if we define "quite small" as "less than 5%".
So from the statistics it is true to say that "the proportion of trans women in prison for sex offences is considerably larger than the proportion for cis women or cis men" but it is not true to say that "sexual offending among trans women is rife"
Honour also prompts me to point out that the figures are affected by people who claim a trans identity after arrest, although as I don't have a solid figure for this I can't use it.
(Incidentally by same coin the number of non-binary sex offenders is zero)
It's also important to remember that sex offenders are more likely to be younger, and that trans women are also likely to be younger.
Having sat on a Planning Committee I found it odd just how many Councillors couldn’t or refused to accept that it was Quasijudical.
You are there to make a decision based on planning law, Council Policy and evidence: the merits of the application and if it meets the criteria.
It’s effectively the same as sitting on the Bench at a trial in a Sheriff Court.
You can’t convict without evidence just because you think someone’s dodgy any more than let them off if the public gallery is full of their mates.
Often people would cite the number of objections but we way them based on merit not volume.
As one planner once said to me;
“It’s a bit like an exam; There are right and wrong answers and if you get 30 answers and only 4 are right you don’t turn round and say they are wrong because of the other 26!”
They all know (they are certainly told), and most make an effort I find. It can be frustrating when national rules in particular constrain the effective decision-making, but that's the nature of the beast - the smart ones find the edge cases where judgement calls will allow them to push back against speculative development, and those cases are successfully defended at appeal which is one you need democratic involvement sometimes and not just cut it out completely.
In my experience it's usually local members not on the committee who don't accept the nature of the role, because it makes sense for them to do so as they only have to represent their residents. MPs do it as well, because it is literally nothing to do with them so jump on the bandwagon.
What's your evidence that sexual offending among trans women is rife? (Not anecdote, please.)
The ratio of A/B is considerably greater for trans women than for cis women or cis men. This is where
A = the number of people in type X in prison for a sex offence
B = the number of people in type X in the population
But in all cases A/B is quite small, if we define "quite small" as "less than 5%".
So from the statistics it is true to say that "the proportion of trans women in prison for sex offences is considerably larger than the proportion for cis women or cis men" but it is not true to say that "sexual offending among trans women is rife"
Honour also prompts me to point out that the figures are affected by people who claim a trans identity after arrest, although as I don't have a solid figure for this I can't use it.
(Incidentally by same coin the number of non-binary sex offenders is zero)
It's also important to remember that sex offenders are more likely to be younger, and that trans women are also likely to be younger.
So you also need to control for that.
Agh. I don't have the figures for the age distribution of trans people as distinct from cis people. I'd really like to see *that* population pyramid
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I don’t have a daughter. I understand from friends with daughters that their daughters would call them transphobic if they talked like that. There is a strong generational divide here and the daughters generally do not seem to be in agreement with your position, Cyclefree.
Yes true, but only because they have been influenced by trans activists on social media. I have two daughters and they and their peers readily change their view when the full issues are explained to them in a unbiased and factual way.
"If you tell him what he wants to hear, he'll shut up and leave you alone."
Kimmel trying to induce a coronary infarction in the president.
“Trump’s poll numbers are like his balls — sunk to a historic low…”
“He’s polling exactly like Paul Blart from Mall Cop… and he’s actually two points behind his own Vice President JD Vance. I’m not joking, I just want to make sure Trump knows he’s losing to JD Vance.". https://x.com/MarcosBTCreal/status/2061632048369131791
The "proportion of sex offenders who are trans people" is not the same as the "proportion of trans people who are sex offenders"! Away to the Bayesian prison with you!
The "proportion of sex offenders who are trans people" is not the same as the "proportion of trans people who are sex offenders"! Away to the Bayesian prison with you!
This is probably just an artifact of trans women being pushed out of the cocaine dealing trade by Albanians.
‘ NEW: No 10 finally confirms that Keir Starmer uses *disappearing messages* function - meaning that countless exchanges with Mandelson may have been lost’
No FB it isn't a reliable source. I wasn't claiming it to be. But the mood on it has definitely shifted. The level of vitriol has upped considerably towards more personal attacks and claims of interference and unfairness. Whether this is significant, I don't know. But it has been noticeable.
Its this:
Reform will win because Labour are awful. Restore hate Reform and think they are race traitors Restore and Reform step up both their vitriol against each other and hurl rocks towards Burnham The entire social media world is which one wins - Reform or Restore
Then Labour wins and we get the EVERYONE I KNOW VOTED REFORM / RESTORE THIS WAS STOLEN bullshit
You may well be correct in your assumption.
I said Burnham would win from the start. The Reform/Restore fandango just makes it ever more certain. For two reasons: 1) The hard rite vote splits in two 2) The increasing vitriol repels decent voters which increases the Labour vote
Reform/Restore have the exact same problem previous LabCon politicians have had - not realising that not everyone thinks like them and the more they foam on and on the more determined people are to vote against them.
Or it could be that the Burnham isn't a local and doesn't care about the area (untrue he lives as near as dammit and sent his kids to the local comp) hasn't cut through as it never would really, but immigration has. The bots have stopped insisting Burnham is a Scouser. Anyone vaguely from the area knows what a Scouser is and he blatantly isn't one. He's a wool.
With the accent of a well spoken educated bloke from the area.
Points up a Reform weakness. Just as in G+D the Online campaign narrative was very attractive to people who don't live locally and fired up their prejudices. Yet obvious errors from bots pretending to be local yet having seemingly no knowledge of the basic geography of the area.
If Reform want to win it needs to be immigration all day every day.
Yeah, the x isn't local is always a baffling campaign when the candidate they are decrying clearly is. I remember the LibDems (booo) trying it in Rochdale in 1997 trying to make out that Lorna Fitsimons was a Londoner. Nope. Literally grew up in the constituency. Irony being the incumbent LD MP was a Londoner.
If Kenyon was kosher than maybe it would have worked. But now that he looks about as authentic as a 9 bob note its all gone wrong.
Even the immigration immigration immigration strategy has a problem. Burnham is running *against* the government, not for it. So if voters want change do they vote for the guy who would have the power to actually do it, or for a guy who won't?
The Reform "shadow cabinet" are mostly the ministers who were in place for the Boris wave. Labour have reduced immigration by 75% from when the Reform cabinet were in charge.......
Correction Sunak and Cleverly reduced immigration when they tightened visa wage rules and stopped dependents being brought in
It's a reference to the cerulean top monologue/speech. It was inserted for reasons I forget but it's an absolute banger, and one of two great dialogues in the file (the other being Stanley Tucci's advice to Andy - basically "toughen up, buttercup"). The speech is in the YouTube below.
"...oh okay I see you think this has nothing to do with you you go to your closet and you select I don't know that lumpy blue sweater for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back but what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue it's not turquoise it's not lapis it's actually Cerulean you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002 Oscar De La Renta did a collection of Cerulean gowns and then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent wasn't it who showed Cerulean military jackets (I think we need a jacket here) and then Cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers and then it uh filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you no doubt fished it out of some clearance bin. However that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when in fact you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of "stuff..."
Could some Latin lovers give me some help, please?
In the Style section of the May 5th New York Times, in "What We Love About the First 'Devil Wears Prada'", I found this sentence:
When [journalist] Andy [Sachs] scoffs at a room of Runway employees choosing between two very similar belts, Miranda soundly decimates her with a monologue about the ubiquitousness and utility of fashion.
I can guess what the Maya Phillips means, but I couldn't help trying to translate what she wrote. The best I could come up with something like this: Miranda gave Andy weight loss surgery, perhaps using ultrasound.
No doubt some of you can do better than that.
It's a reference to the cerulean top monologue/speech. It was inserted for reasons I forget but it's an absolute banger, and one of two great dialogues in the file (the other being Stanley Tucci's advice to Andy - basically "toughen up, buttercup"). The speech is in the YouTube below.
"...oh okay I see you think this has nothing to do with you you go to your closet and you select I don't know that lumpy blue sweater for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back but what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue it's not turquoise it's not lapis it's actually Cerulean you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002 Oscar De La Renta did a collection of Cerulean gowns and then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent wasn't it who showed Cerulean military jackets (I think we need a jacket here) and then Cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers and then it uh filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you no doubt fished it out of some clearance bin. However that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when in fact you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of "stuff..."
Could some Latin lovers give me some help, please?
In the Style section of the May 5th New York Times, in "What We Love About the First 'Devil Wears Prada'", I found this sentence:
When [journalist] Andy [Sachs] scoffs at a room of Runway employees choosing between two very similar belts, Miranda soundly decimates her with a monologue about the ubiquitousness and utility of fashion.
I can guess what the Maya Phillips means, but I couldn't help trying to translate what she wrote. The best I could come up with something like this: Miranda gave Andy weight loss surgery, perhaps using ultrasound.
No doubt some of you can do better than that.
It's a reference to the cerulean top monologue/speech. It was inserted for reasons I forget but it's an absolute banger, and one of two great dialogues in the file (the other being Stanley Tucci's advice to Andy - basically "toughen up, buttercup"). The speech is in the YouTube below.
"...oh okay I see you think this has nothing to do with you you go to your closet and you select I don't know that lumpy blue sweater for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back but what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue it's not turquoise it's not lapis it's actually Cerulean you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002 Oscar De La Renta did a collection of Cerulean gowns and then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent wasn't it who showed Cerulean military jackets (I think we need a jacket here) and then Cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers and then it uh filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you no doubt fished it out of some clearance bin. However that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when in fact you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of "stuff..."
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
I think an overriding factor might be that they need a piss.
Everyone should watch this and if they are from the Uk they should feel embarrassed and asamed. I've given up with this country so I don't give a shit..If I want Netanyahu to be my Prime Minister ......well I'd shoot myself first.
Viewcode this came on at the end of your entertaining Prada clip.....
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
The belief that trans women have sexual motivations for transition is foundational to much opposition to trans rights of any kind. Quite where this leaves trans men is usually unspecified - campaigners tend to conceive of trans men as confused lesbians if they thing about them at all - but most campaigners (like Cyclefree) seem to exclusively focus on trans women.
The evidence for this is contested (unsurprisingly!): but the academic research on the topic dopes seem to have a lot of issues, not least that the people who carried out the early studies in the 70s & 80s were also gatekeepers for access to gender related treatment, so it would be entirely unsurprising if the trans women being “studied” said exactly what they believed they needed to say in order to access treatment. The research also failed to make comparisons with non-trans populations - the early research made a big deal of trans people finding the idea of seeing their transitioned bodies arousing, but if you read later research it turns out that cis people report similar things too - strangely enough a lot of us like looking at ourselves. In other words, “autogynophilia“ is not particularly unique to trans people & seeing it as particularly deviant does not seem to match actual human behaviour.
We do know that the motivation for social gender transition can be extremely strong - there are cases in the literature going back before the C19th IIRC, long before any kind of hormonal treatment was ever possible. You only have to read some of the case studies to see people who are extremely distressed & their distress is not because they are failing to get their rocks off due to being unable to transition.
Cyclefree is of course absolutely correct that men who are determined to get access to vulnerable women will use any means available to them to do so. It’s also clearly trues that there are narcissistic sociopaths out there who will happily transition if it gains them attention & access to women to abuse - we’ve seen this very clearly in the prison population. However the idea that you can keep such people out of women’s changing rooms simply by banning trans people from them doesn’t seem plausible to me. People like this have no need to put a dress on to enter those spaces, nor will a sign on the door make any difference. I know someone who was sexually assaulted in the women’s toilets at an old workplace - the perpetrator of that assault did not need to put on a dress to enter those toilets then & I don’t see how adding a rule that “men shall not enter women’s spaces” is going to stop someone who is willing to commit sexual assault.
Everyone should watch this and if they are from the Uk they should feel embarrassed and asamed. I've given up with this country so I don't give a shit..If I want Netanyahu to be my Prime Minister ......well I'd shoot myself first.
Viewcode this came on at the end of your entertaining Prada clip.....
That is indeed an incredible piece of writing and delivered to perfection by Meryl Streep in the film. The sequel is very disappointing.
They thought the original was a camp extravaganza about fashion, where actually it's competency porn and a coming of age story. The young person enters the field of battle, is discouraged by the randomness and violence of the outcomes, complains and whines, but is set straight by the older warriors who have wisdom ("Suck it up, Buttercup"), absorbs their wisdom, adapts, learns to cope, survives, and then graduates to the next challenge. It's the same plot as "The Godfather" but with dresses.
I'm not sure which mob Zia Yusef is connected with but someone like that would persuade me to vote Tory to ensure he got nowhere near power. A trully nasty piece of work. Does anyone here have anything good to say about him? God help the UK if that's what passes as a British politician
He was on World at One which may have inspired your post. The presenter mentioned that Henry Novak’s (or poor Henry as Zia kept calling him) father had made a statement saying that politicians should not politicise his son’s death, Zia completely ignored this and carried on politicising Novak’s death. He really is completely rancid, Trumpian politics made British flesh.
I'm not sure which mob Zia Yusef is connected with but someone like that would persuade me to vote Tory to ensure he got nowhere near power. A trully nasty piece of work. Does anyone here have anything good to say about him? God help the UK if that's what passes as a British politician
He was on World at One which may have inspired your post. The presenter mentioned that Henry Novak’s (or poor Henry as Zia kept calling him) father had made a statement saying that politicians should not politicise his son’s death, Zia completely ignored this and carried on politicising Novak’s death. He really is completely rancid, Trumpian politics made British flesh.
He signed a letter from “Shadow Chancellor”, was very odd
That is indeed an incredible piece of writing and delivered to perfection by Meryl Streep in the film. The sequel is very disappointing.
They thought the original was a camp extravaganza about fashion, where actually it's competency porn and a coming of age story. The young person enters the field of battle, is discouraged by the randomness and violence of the outcomes, complains and whines, but is set straight by the older warriors who have wisdom ("Suck it up, Buttercup"), absorbs their wisdom, adapts, learns to cope, survives, and then graduates to the next challenge. It's the same plot as "The Godfather" but with dresses.
That's a great take. The original film is really very good. Although I would argue that in addition to being all the things you describe it is *also* a camp extravaganza.
I'm not sure which mob Zia Yusef is connected with but someone like that would persuade me to vote Tory to ensure he got nowhere near power. A trully nasty piece of work. Does anyone here have anything good to say about him? God help the UK if that's what passes as a British politician
He was on World at One which may have inspired your post. The presenter mentioned that Henry Novak’s (or poor Henry as Zia kept calling him) father had made a statement saying that politicians should not politicise his son’s death, Zia completely ignored this and carried on politicising Novak’s death. He really is completely rancid, Trumpian politics made British flesh.
That is indeed an incredible piece of writing and delivered to perfection by Meryl Streep in the film. The sequel is very disappointing.
They thought the original was a camp extravaganza about fashion, where actually it's competency porn and a coming of age story. The young person enters the field of battle, is discouraged by the randomness and violence of the outcomes, complains and whines, but is set straight by the older warriors who have wisdom ("Suck it up, Buttercup"), absorbs their wisdom, adapts, learns to cope, survives, and then graduates to the next challenge. It's the same plot as "The Godfather" but with dresses.
That's a great take. The original film is really very good. Although I would argue that in addition to being all the things you describe it is *also* a camp extravaganza.
He's trying to make himself seem more important and relevant to the world than they really are.
If and when Reform's polling starts to fade - it will be interesting to see how news organisations react and when they start treating Reform as the minor political force they really are.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated. What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
Not all such people, sure, but the activist group members very much fall into that category, they *want* to make regular women uncomfortable. @cyclefree will probably say that having a penis means you shouldn’t be in the women’s room, which in my mind seems to be a reasonable place to draw the line.
There’s even a medical term for it, autogynephilia, as distinct from gender disphoria.
In fairness to m'learned colleague @Cyclefree, she insists that the status of "biological male" is set at birth (conception?) and is not altered by any genital surgery. Your statement seems to believe that trans women without a penis are still allowed in women's toilets. If my preliminary reading ( @RochdalePioneers and @malcolmg asked me to look into it ) is correct, they are not.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the current legal position was that, after the redefinition of the terms of the Equality Act to achieve internal consistency, anywhere where gendered facilities are required in law now has to split those facilities on the basis of biological sex (whoever the judges decide to precisely define that if a case ever comes to court). That doesn’t currently extend to places where facilities are offered to the public by a venue without legal obligation for them to be split by gender.
So, for instance, changing rooms in Marks & Spencer can be split any way M+S management prefers, subject to meeting their duty of care to staff and the public, because there’s no law that states that M+S must supply changing rooms divided on the basis of (biological) sex. Meanwhile changing rooms in workplaces & hospitals must be split on the basis of biological sex, because they are required by law to exist & the Equality Act now states that the division on the basis of sex must be biological sex.
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
There has been a lot of spin around this (when isn't there). Like the idea that thinking you have been born in the wrong body isn't a mental condition (activists got the UN to change definitions). No-one gets to choose their gender, you are born with it.
Around sexual motivation for cross dressing there has been a similar effort to decouple from sexual desire, to give it the very spin that you have used 'to affirm their gender identity'. Yet sexual offending among trans women is rife. And you can also look at the record of these men when placed into womens prisons to see their true selves come out.
What's your evidence that sexual offending among trans women is rife? (Not anecdote, please.)
The Daily Mail will look at stats that say 60% of trans women in prison are there for sexual offences.
There’s a lot going on behind the scenes there though, such as a small sample group, and the number of such offenders who never mentioned being transgender until after they found themselves in the justice system.
I would've thought the latter is an important point. If people are abusing the system by claiming to be transgender in order to get a 'better' prison environment, as is the concern, then the stats on prisoners claiming to be transgender may not tell us much about transgender people in the rest of society.
‘ NEW: No 10 finally confirms that Keir Starmer uses *disappearing messages* function - meaning that countless exchanges with Mandelson may have been lost’
HMG should not be using disappearing messages and should not be using WhatsApp at all. Still, lessons will be learned...
No10 said that this means “some material may no longer be available, for example, where devices have changed or messages were set to disappear for legitimate reasons.
“But we also recognize there are lessons on record keeping, archiving, and the use of secure systems going forward.”
Re the police - and indeed other public services - what @Nigelb said in response to my comment on the previous thread goes to the heart of the issue.
"It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones."
It ought not to be. But I rather fear that that is exactly what has happened. Too many public services have adopted new prejudices and created conflicts of interest which impede the proper exercise of their functions.
Exactly. In the rush to avoid being seen as racist the police have now been totally captured by a narrative that only whites can be the bad guy in a situation like this.
Its also why we have so many happy to comply with the latest DEI bullshit around 'gender' to the utter disregard of womens' rights.
Our Uni is planning on not following the recent government advice, it seems.
"On 21 May 2026, the EHRC Code of Practice following the Supreme Court's ruling defining sex within the Equalities Act (2010) was presented to Parliament. With this news, we want to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring dignity, safety and respect for all people on campus, including our trans, non-binary and intersex staff, students and visitors. As a University, we have zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, including transphobia, in line with our Dignity and Respect Policy, and we will act where concerns are raised.
Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code of Practice before a date is set for it to be enacted. The EHRC Code of Practice will automatically come into force if Parliament does not pass a resolution against it within 40 days. We will use this period to consider all of the implications of the Code for the University.
In the meantime, students and staff should continue to use the gendered spaces - including toilets and changing rooms - that align with their gender identity. No one should be questioned or challenged for doing so. If anyone does experience questioning, confrontation, or behaviour that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, this can be reported immediately through the Support and Report tool so that appropriate action will be taken.
In addition to gendered facilities, all gender toilets are available across campus. These can be located using the campus map, if you prefer to use them.
We believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to pursuing equity for LGBTQ+ people within the University community. Discussions are currently underway with Campus Infrastructure, Campus Services, and the Health and Safety Team to establish a clear, long term University policy for toilet provision across campus."
Look at it this way. They are giving women a cast iron case for indirect discrimination claims, reporting to the HSE for breach of health & safety rules (a criminal offence) and possibly also a breach of the regulations in place since October 2024 to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of staff.
This will provide lots of work for all my lawyer friends specialising in this area of the law.
They are also facilitating criminal offences such as voyeurism and indecent exposure and in breach of their safeguarding obligations to students.
Telling a woman faced with a man staring at her while she is changing that she must not query his presence or challenge him is to undermine the steps she needs to take to keep herself safe. It is grotesque advice. Utterly grotesque. It tells women - put up with fear, risk or crime - and don't you dare do anything to protect yourself because the feelings of the man making you feel at risk are more important.
I'd like to ask men here with daughters? Is that what you tell them? Is that what your advice is? And if it isn't why is it ok for a place which has a duty of care to them to give such advice?
I'd go with Linehan's tweet, the one that got him into trouble with the police (and which the police have grudgingly admitted was a wrongful arrest)
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
Its a joke, but it portrays real situations.
Linehan is talking balls I'm afraid. A woman will challenge but will not be violent because she knows that in a physical confrontation with a man she will lose. So she will try to defuse or flee. That then is used by activists to say women don't object which is nonsense too.
Women rely on men behaving decently and no men, whether trans or not, should go into a women only space and universities and others need to have procedures which reinforce that decency and so not put the onus of challenge on women or actively tell them not to. What this university is doing is telling women to put up with indecent behaviour and, far from reinforcing equality, it is putting the demands of a subset of men above all other considerations, including the law.
He's joking, of course.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
There didn’t used to be a group of fetishistic men who would get off on being in the women’s room, making the women uncomfortable at best, and victims of indencency or sexual assault at worst.
I think this is exagerrated.
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
That there is a sexual motive to their actions.
Yes that's what I thought you meant. But is it true? I know there are exceptions but men who identify as women are not at all sexually motivated to use the women's facilities. They want to re-affirm their chosen identity, surely? They may be genuine/narcissistic/deluded but such people are not a threat to women are they.
There has been a lot of spin around this (when isn't there). Like the idea that thinking you have been born in the wrong body isn't a mental condition (activists got the UN to change definitions). No-one gets to choose their gender, you are born with it.
Around sexual motivation for cross dressing there has been a similar effort to decouple from sexual desire, to give it the very spin that you have used 'to affirm their gender identity'. Yet sexual offending among trans women is rife. And you can also look at the record of these men when placed into womens prisons to see their true selves come out.
What's your evidence that sexual offending among trans women is rife? (Not anecdote, please.)
The Daily Mail will look at stats that say 60% of trans women in prison are there for sexual offences.
There’s a lot going on behind the scenes there though, such as a small sample group, and the number of such offenders who never mentioned being transgender until after they found themselves in the justice system.
I would've thought the latter is an important point. If people are abusing the system by claiming to be transgender in order to get a 'better' prison environment, as is the concern, then the stats on prisoners claiming to be transgender may not tell us much about transgender people in the rest of society.
Off topic: do women's prisons have better conditions because just there are no men there, or are they genuinely nicer?
Could some Latin lovers give me some help, please?
In the Style section of the May 5th New York Times, in "What We Love About the First 'Devil Wears Prada'", I found this sentence: When [journalist] Andy [Sachs] scoffs at a room of Runway employees choosing between two very similar belts, Miranda soundly decimates her with a monologue about the ubiquitousness and utility of fashion
I can guess what the Maya Phillips means, but I couldn't help trying to translate what she wrote. The best I could come up with something like this: Miranda gave Andy weight loss surgery, perhaps using ultrasound.
No doubt some of you can do better than that.
It's a reference to the cerulean top monologue/speech. It was inserted for reasons I forget but it's an absolute banger, and one of two great dialogues in the file (the other being Stanley Tucci's advice to Andy - basically "toughen up, buttercup"). The speech is in the YouTube below.
"...oh okay I see you think this has nothing to do with you you go to your closet and you select I don't know that lumpy blue sweater for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back but what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue it's not turquoise it's not lapis it's actually Cerulean you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002 Oscar De La Renta did a collection of Cerulean gowns and then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent wasn't it who showed Cerulean military jackets (I think we need a jacket here) and then Cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers and then it uh filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you no doubt fished it out of some clearance bin. However that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when in fact you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of "stuff..."
"Britain’s return to the EU is inevitable, says Treasury minister Lord Livermore becomes first serving minister to publicly back overturning the 2016 referendum result"
Comments
I have no intention of either listening to or following your arrogant dictat and will post as I feel fit
It is not for you to tell posters what to post
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/cybergang-all-girls-school-ai-porn-ransom-5HjdZzF_2/
Cyber-gang 'demand £250k ransom from school' - threatening to release AI porn of pupils if it didn't pay
An all-girls school in the north of England has been targeted by criminals who used AI to turn photos featuring dozens of pupils posted online into child sexual abuse material, LBC has been told.
I agree with you, and strongly support Sex Matters, but I do think that the 'toilet thing' is focused on much too much.
Years ago women and men toilets were kind of loose terms I think. I mean, in pubs and clubs I saw women use the men's loo many times (no one cared). Sure men using women's loos was uncommon (and sometimes a genuine mistake) but they'd get a bollocking at the most I think.
I don't recall women's loos every being described as a 'safe space'. When did this change?
I think things were better when we were relaxed and cool about such things rather than being all legalistic and censorious.
It is a fundamental misconception about the role of decision-makers in certain situations, and whether they can take anything into account or not. There are many occasions when very deliberately certain things cannot or must not be taken into account, but many even experienced councillors don't like being told their powers are limited in that respect.
Indeed, the role of councillor in general is not as powerful as many councillors think when it comes to national government setting very firm guardrails. Hence getting a lot of performative motions and unanimity across parties to criticise the government of the day, even if it is your own party.
I think Lowe is far more popular that people realise and will split the Reform vote. A massive advantage for Labour which will, I think, be much more of a factor than the Greens splitting the Lab vote. Plus there will be big 'stop Reform' tactical voting.
After the murder at Magennis' Bar, 71 Shiners gave sworn statements to the police that they had been in the toilets when the killing happened and for hours afterwards.
A 4 foot x 3 foot urinal.
Given that this means a number of women swore that they had invaded the men’s toilets, can they be prosecuted for that?
No doubt some of you can do better than that.
It's a reference to the cerulean top monologue/speech. It was inserted for reasons I forget but it's an absolute banger, and one of two great dialogues in the file (the other being Stanley Tucci's advice to Andy - basically "toughen up, buttercup"). The speech is in the YouTube below.
"...oh okay I see you think this has nothing to do with you you go to your closet and you select I don't know that lumpy blue sweater for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back but what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue it's not turquoise it's not lapis it's actually Cerulean you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002 Oscar De La Renta did a collection of Cerulean gowns and then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent wasn't it who showed Cerulean military jackets (I think we need a jacket here) and then Cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers and then it uh filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you no doubt fished it out of some clearance bin. However that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when in fact you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of "stuff..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL-KQij0I8I
What do you mean by 'fetishistic'?
When it's my wife doing the explaining?
There’s even a medical term for it, autogynephilia, as distinct from gender disphoria.
find information/texts/messages to back them up and get them off the hookhttps://x.com/i/status/2061735363127730232
Around sexual motivation for cross dressing there has been a similar effort to decouple from sexual desire, to give it the very spin that you have used 'to affirm their gender identity'. Yet sexual offending among trans women is rife. And you can also look at the record of these men when placed into womens prisons to see their true selves come out.
As it turned out it was a wonderful place to be. The other three residents of the building were all known . One of was Robert Chote another Rachel Johnson and another Firmietta Rocco.
On the ground floor was a peep-show called 'Pussy Galore' which soon became a restaurant and directly opposite was 'The Admiral Duncan' famous for being bombed and twenty yards down the road Grouchos.
Later it became gentrified and the police chased away the last of the girls and it lost a lot of it's charm. Last time I visied there was a coach party of Koreans who were there to look at the original home of the 3I's. They were doing a tour of Rock and Roll in the 60's and it was where Tommy Steele was discovered!
Part of the process involves discussions between planning officers and developers - some may think the system is wholly adversarial, it isn't. The Developer has the Local Plan and knows where the lines in terms of densities and housing types exist and if they need to challenge those to turn a buck on the development, that happens in those discussions.
The Officers might recommend approving a slightly denser development in exchange for a more generous or specific Section 106 payment.
There is a right of consultation and local residents have a right to object and simply saying "it's in the national interest" is a cop out. My experience is very few object outright to any development - most concerns raised are about noise during construction, vehicular access, pressure on local infrastructure and proposed numbers and densities of dwellings. These concerns should be taken into account and not just ridden roughshod over to justify some "build, build, build" mantra.
Email received just now from Amazon "Prime Day is coming 23-26 June". That's four days you dicks.
*Waits for the inevitable "but what about intersex?"
Jim_the_Lurker posted a link to the evidence released, I don't know what Boulton thought "suggested" Robbins was exonerated but looking through the first part there is no pertinent email from Robbins contemporaneous to the vetting, there are only emails from Robbins from September after Mandelson had been dismissed. These are in response to the "How/Why did he pass vetting?" so are arse-covering as you'd expect.
The link to the files is here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/update-on-the-government-response-to-the-humble-address-motion
This is what Smith gave evidence on, as per her testimony there doesn't seem to be anything that exonerates Robbins but have at it.
I don't think Boulton and Coates are necessarily reliable as they'd set their narrative from when Robbins gave evidence and as well-evidenced media outlets are reluctant to change their narrative, particularly when disputing it requires considerable wading through tedious emails.
Although the first 40 odd pages are interesting reading for what appears to be an attempt to avoid Developed Vetting by Collard and other senior civil servants which is resisted by the redacted Junior Civil Servant(s), 'my understanding is that it should be subject to DV but "happy to be overruled"' - which I'm sure most PBers would interpret as "you'll have to issue a direct instruction in writing".
I've done fucking loads to this house without a sniff of planning permission or any regard to its listed status. I'm not stupid or venal enough to turn it into a public attraction so it'll never matter.
- "autogynephilia" refers to a misdirected sex-target development (a fetish) which makes the person desire to be the target gender instead of having sex with the target gender. It does not refer to the degree of surgery undertaken.
- "gender dysphoria" (not disphoria, a word that does not exist) is an awkward one because I think there are multiple definitions flying around. In the context you used it it would refer to discomfort with the presence of the penis and a desire to remove it (which would technically make it "sex dysphoria" if you use the word "sex" to refer to the penis, not "gender dysphoria"). That is not the only definition, which should be obvious when you consider that "sex" and "gender" now describe different things.
So your sentence ("There’s even a medical term for it, autogynephilia, as distinct from gender disphoria") doesn't make sense, since the former refers to a motive and the latter a desire for penis surgery.Meanwhile:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98rzr72dpyo
"Instagram AI chatbot tricked by hackers to give access to others' accounts"
The disadvantage of the term "biological male" can be discerned from @Sandpit's belief that a man who has had his penis destroyed by surgery is not a "biological male".
I am not aware of any evidence that supports your claim here.
I said the exchange appears to exonerate Robbins and you can play on words but the pile on was unacceptable, though not from you, with one poster suggesting I had virtually made it up
Some on this forum have in the past hounded posters to the point they left and that is not acceptable but I am not going anywhere and will continue to post as I think it is relevant
We aren't going to agree on this, as my experience (which is pretty significant) is that a great many people object outright to development, as 1) their official reasons for objection are often incredibly flimsy or irrelevant and 2) when one falls they always come up with another. The objections are, sadly, very often pretextual.
I don't think 'it's in the national interest' is a cop out either. Governments make decisions in the national interest all the time, because sometimes things are needed. We may not agree on what is, but it is not unreasonable for governments to decide some things are seen as more important than 'It will be noisy during construction', which I'm surprised you've included as it is a completely trivial complaint by definition of limited duration and so worth the cost.
The government was proposing that when there is outline permission that the full permission was then always delegated, because I assure you people do try to fight the principle afterwards, which is an example of a totally illegitimate objection which people still engage in because they don't want any building, not that they dislike it a bit. The government has, to my mind fairly, compromised and said it can still be decided by committee, where it is a phased development, as that will generally mean a very large site where the issues can be sufficiently significant and complex as to justify continuing objection.
I go back to a classic example I've seen of a parish council stating that young people would be out of character for their village as a reason for objecting. I've listed dozens of similar cases in the past, and though I know we disagree on this point, it means I do not give the benefit of the doubt to people not being simply opposed completely.
Lastly, the planning system already emphasises peoples' concerns a lot, and consultation will continue to exist to enable people to do so - as will committees for significant matters. So the presentation of changing the balance to make it a bit easier as 'build build build' is a simply false. You're essentially suggesting any adjustment is unfair. Presumption in favour of sustainable development is already a thing in many cases, and is one of the most unpopular things with local people.
That you think modest changes are 'build build build' demonstrates how big a problem we have. Believe me, the 'build build build' gang would go a lot lot further than 'national scheme of delegation'.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-14237553/Almost-two-thirds-transgender-women-prisons-sentences-sex-offences.html
There’s a lot going on behind the scenes there though, such as a small sample group, and the number of such offenders who never mentioned being transgender until after they found themselves in the justice system.
There is a right of consultation and local residents have a right to object and simply saying "it's in the national interest" is a cop out. My experience is very few object outright to any development - most concerns raised are about noise during construction, vehicular access, pressure on local infrastructure and proposed numbers and densities of dwellings. These concerns should be taken into account and not just ridden roughshod over to justify some "build, build, build" mantra.
Having sat on a Planning Committee I found it odd just how many Councillors couldn’t or refused to accept that it was Quasijudical.
You are there to make a decision based on planning law, Council Policy and evidence: the merits of the application and if it meets the criteria.
It’s effectively the same as sitting on the Bench at a trial in a Sheriff Court.
You can’t convict without evidence just because you think someone’s dodgy any more than let them off if the public gallery is full of their mates.
Often people would cite the number of objections but we way them based on merit not volume.
As one planner once said to me;
“It’s a bit like an exam; There are right and wrong answers and if you get 30 answers and only 4 are right you don’t turn round and say they are wrong because of the other 26!”
Peter.
There is a right of consultation and local residents have a right to object and simply saying "it's in the national interest" is a cop out. My experience is very few object outright to any development - most concerns raised are about noise during construction, vehicular access, pressure on local infrastructure and proposed numbers and densities of dwellings. These concerns should be taken into account and not just ridden roughshod over to justify some "build, build, build" mantra.
Having sat on a Planning Committee I found it odd just how many Councillors couldn’t or refused to accept that it was Quasijudical.
You are there to make a decision based on planning law, Council Policy and evidence: the merits of the application and if it meets the criteria.
It’s effectively the same as sitting on the Bench at a trial in a Sheriff Court.
You can’t convict without evidence just because you think someone’s dodgy any more than let them off if the public gallery is full of their mates.
Often people would cite the number of objections but we way them based on merit not volume.
As one planner once said to me;
“It’s a bit like an exam; There are right and wrong answers and if you get 30 answers and only 4 are right you don’t turn round and say they are wrong because of the other 26!”
Peter.
- A = the number of people in type X in prison for a sex offence
- B = the number of people in type X in the population
But in all cases A/B is quite small, if we define "quite small" as "less than 5%".So from the statistics it is true to say that "the proportion of trans women in prison for sex offences is considerably larger than the proportion for cis women or cis men" but it is not true to say that "sexual offending among trans women is rife"
Honour also prompts me to point out that the figures are affected by people who claim a trans identity after arrest, although as I don't have a solid figure for this I can't use it.
(Incidentally by same coin the number of non-binary sex offenders is zero)
It has the highest levels of toxic Pfas in drinking water in Scotland. But how did this remote island become awash with forever chemicals?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/02/toxic-pfas-drinking-water-scotland-how-fair-isle-island-forever-chemicals
...“We think of the ocean as the ultimate sink: the only really effective way to remove persistent pollutants,” says Bo Sha, an environmental chemist at Stockholm University who began researching how seaspray can collect and transport Pfas over vast distances almost a decade ago. “But with Pfas it’s like a pump that keeps pushing chemicals to the surface.”
That’s because, unlike other persistent pollutants such as PCBs and DDT, Pfas are highly surface active: attracted to the interface between water and air. A bubble travelling through seawater “harvests” Pfas towards it, Sha says, and in any given sample of seawater the seafoam floating above it would be expected to contain more Pfas than the water itself.
“Once airborne in bubbles or spray, the chemicals can then travel hundreds of kilometres in days,” says Sha. Pfas used far away could, once in the ocean, accumulate in Fair Isle – in such high proportions because the island is often exposed to stormy seaspray and is so small..
So you also need to control for that.
They all know (they are certainly told), and most make an effort I find. It can be frustrating when national rules in particular constrain the effective decision-making, but that's the nature of the beast - the smart ones find the edge cases where judgement calls will allow them to push back against speculative development, and those cases are successfully defended at appeal which is one you need democratic involvement sometimes and not just cut it out completely.
In my experience it's usually local members not on the committee who don't accept the nature of the role, because it makes sense for them to do so as they only have to represent their residents. MPs do it as well, because it is literally nothing to do with them so jump on the bandwagon.
“Trump’s poll numbers are like his balls — sunk to a historic low…”
“He’s polling exactly like Paul Blart from Mall Cop… and he’s actually two points behind his own Vice President JD Vance. I’m not joking, I just want to make sure Trump knows he’s losing to JD Vance.".
https://x.com/MarcosBTCreal/status/2061632048369131791
The "proportion of sex offenders who are trans people" is not the same as the "proportion of trans people who are sex offenders"! Away to the Bayesian prison with you!
‘ NEW: No 10 finally confirms that Keir Starmer uses *disappearing messages* function - meaning that countless exchanges with Mandelson may have been lost’
https://x.com/jasongroves1/status/2061781706051399682?s=61
"...oh okay I see you think this has nothing to do with you you go to your closet and you select I don't know that lumpy blue sweater for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back but what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue it's not turquoise it's not lapis it's actually Cerulean you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002 Oscar De La Renta did a collection of Cerulean gowns and then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent wasn't it who showed Cerulean military jackets (I think we need a jacket here) and then Cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers and then it uh filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you no doubt fished it out of some clearance bin. However that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when in fact you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of "stuff..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL-KQij0I8I
That is indeed an incredible piece of writing and delivered to perfection by Meryl Streep in the film. The sequel is very disappointing.
Something wrong with the blockquotes here!
Viewcode this came on at the end of your entertaining Prada clip.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR5IUs6UZ7M
The evidence for this is contested (unsurprisingly!): but the academic research on the topic dopes seem to have a lot of issues, not least that the people who carried out the early studies in the 70s & 80s were also gatekeepers for access to gender related treatment, so it would be entirely unsurprising if the trans women being “studied” said exactly what they believed they needed to say in order to access treatment. The research also failed to make comparisons with non-trans populations - the early research made a big deal of trans people finding the idea of seeing their transitioned bodies arousing, but if you read later research it turns out that cis people report similar things too - strangely enough a lot of us like looking at ourselves. In other words, “autogynophilia“ is not particularly unique to trans people & seeing it as particularly deviant does not seem to match actual human behaviour.
We do know that the motivation for social gender transition can be extremely strong - there are cases in the literature going back before the C19th IIRC, long before any kind of hormonal treatment was ever possible. You only have to read some of the case studies to see people who are extremely distressed & their distress is not because they are failing to get their rocks off due to being unable to transition.
Cyclefree is of course absolutely correct that men who are determined to get access to vulnerable women will use any means available to them to do so. It’s also clearly trues that there are narcissistic sociopaths out there who will happily transition if it gains them attention & access to women to abuse - we’ve seen this very clearly in the prison population. However the idea that you can keep such people out of women’s changing rooms simply by banning trans people from them doesn’t seem plausible to me. People like this have no need to put a dress on to enter those spaces, nor will a sign on the door make any difference. I know someone who was sexually assaulted in the women’s toilets at an old workplace - the perpetrator of that assault did not need to put on a dress to enter those toilets then & I don’t see how adding a rule that “men shall not enter women’s spaces” is going to stop someone who is willing to commit sexual assault.
He really is completely rancid, Trumpian politics made British flesh.
If and when Reform's polling starts to fade - it will be interesting to see how news organisations react and when they start treating Reform as the minor political force they really are.
So, for instance, changing rooms in Marks & Spencer can be split any way M+S management prefers, subject to meeting their duty of care to staff and the public, because there’s no law that states that M+S must supply changing rooms divided on the basis of (biological) sex. Meanwhile changing rooms in workplaces & hospitals must be split on the basis of biological sex, because they are required by law to exist & the Equality Act now states that the division on the basis of sex must be biological sex.
Have I mis-understood?
No10 said that this means “some material may no longer be available, for example, where devices have changed or messages were set to disappear for legitimate reasons.
“But we also recognize there are lessons on record keeping, archiving, and the use of secure systems going forward.”
The government is now launching a review of the use of WhatsApp among ministers and officials for work purposes.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/39286154/no10-keir-starmer-disappearing-messages-mandelson-scandal/
I prefer Derek Guy's take on fashion, and the fashion industry.
Lord Livermore becomes first serving minister to publicly back overturning the 2016 referendum result"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/06/02/britain-return-to-eu-inevitable-says-treasury-minister/