Once again Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership causes a party to split – politicalbetting.com
Once again Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership causes a party to split – politicalbetting.com
Sadly there are no betting markets up on the number of MPs Your Party will win at the next general election. I don’t know what it is about Jeremy Corbyn that causes the parties he leads to fracture.
1
Comments
Centerparcs does this well, there is a single changing room for everyone to use but then it is arrays of cubicles within that room. Everyone has their own private space to get changed in (either solo/couples or families as appropriate), nobody getting changed in front of anyone else.
So long as it is lockable, there's no problem. The problem is if you have a communal open changing space then you can't just slap an "all welcome" sticker on that. Sex neutral means redesigning the space and ensuring it is all individually lockable spaces.
Make the spaces all individually lockable and sex is moot.
They couldn't even agree on a leadership model and had public rows before they officially launched, it was destined to go badly.
Funny though.
But he just doesn't have leadership qualities. Ask him before 2015 and he'd probably have agreed with that. But years as leader changes you, ups the ego, and he wanted to be a revered grandee. Then when that failed he reluctantly set up the new movement he'd been badgered about for years by his fans, but still had to be pushed into that.
They’re going to push harder on this.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
Being a de facto PM in waiting risks leaving him very exposed over the next three weeks.
So simply changing the label on the door is not sufficient to make it sex-neutral. It needs cubicles creating and locks installing etc, where currently there are maybe not any or many cubicles as people get changed in the open.
And given cubicles require far more space than open-plan, that redesign is not necessarily easy, without losing capacity.
Many of his fellow travellers are pro reparations fanatics
SNP 1.38 / 1.52
Con 3.3 / 3.95
Lab 38 / 90
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.258320914
I've only ever seen objections against half-arsed transitions that don't meet the rules. Eg toilet cubicles but shared sink space etc.
Firslty, people naturally don't like to be too close to others when toweling off, and having partitions means that there's a physical boundary even if it's only about half a centimeter thick.
Secondly, you are equalizing the male and female changing facilities which might well make use more efficient. (It may be that pre 8am, the pool is 65% men, and between 10am and 6pm it's 60% women.)
If you search Marks and Spencer on twitter you’ll find plenty of posts about it, on all possible sides, but mostly from the GC crowd.
(M+S does seem to have made the error of having “Mens” and “Gender Neutral” changing in some shops, which might even be legal under current legislation (possibly?) but definitely hasn’t endeared them to the Gender Critical crowd, who I will concede might have a point there!)
a) I'm not surprised that there are complaints and
b) you're using them wrong.
Having got the schoolboy humour out of the way, what is the objection to cubicles for parts of the process where bits need to be exposed and non-cubicles for the parts where they aren't?
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
(Actually I think the party will remain a bit higher than they were before he became leader, but had to go for the obvious).
I heard him talk about 47 years of Neo Liberalism failing the working classes and not addressing inequality
On the other hand I have heard him cave to the Red Tory agenda on issue after issue in the last few weeks
So it very much depends which route Labour goes down for me to consider leaving the Greens
Dont worry. Alistair Campbell’s unfunny idiot daughter and her cross dressing male friend owned that.
https://x.com/WingsScotland/status/2045057024577126823/video/1?s=61
The same building has racks for 10 bikes but no benches or table outside where you could sit down waiting for the doors to open. I have never seen even one bike actually use the bike racks. I suggested getting rid of 5 bike racks and putting a table and outside seating in the same place.
"Not five, not four, but free !"
If people just understood the difference…
Legacy mainstream media, same ones who wrote about George Floyd millions of times, are dead silent about Nowak.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2061809366546997488
Never mind, everyone, Elon's on the case. All we need now is for Donald Trump to weigh in.
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
It demonstrates that so many of our basic needs are met that we get so invested in the minutae.
Sorry.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
I wouldn't worry about replacement, I'd just ask for several benches on the huge pavement for everyone to use.
There is a design problem with the round spire of Wakefield Cathedral. I fixed my direction from the centre to my car park relative to the spire, then it turned out that the bloody thing looks identical from every side, and there are umpteen car parks that all look identical. I spent an hour walking a circle round the centre of Wakefield.
- i) There are only two sexes, male and female.
- ii) Sex is diagnosed (not assigned) at birth.
- iii) It is not possible for a human being to change their sex.
- iv) Gender is the set of behaviours associated with a sex. It does/should not replace "sex" in any legislation.
- v) It is possible to assign or reassign a gender but it is separate from sex and the two should not be confused.
Gender critical opinions on those who want to reassign their gender vary and are outwith scope, But all are united that sex and gender are different things.The phrase "gender critical" supplanted "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) because
- i) they did not want to exclude trans people per se, just exclude them from opposite-sex facilities[2]
- ii) some were explicitly and loudly not feminists
- iii) some people used TERF as a slur[3]
- iv) I have older memories regarding the old difference between radical and revolutionary feminism, but I distrust them and I'm not sure Wiki is correct
The phrase "sex realist" has begun to creep (back) in. It was downplayed because:- i) it's too close to "race realist", which is what racists call themselves to be polite
- ii) journalists can only keep track of one phrase in their head at a time.
References"[2] But see the EHRC guidance, which excludes trans people from opposite toilets AND from same-sex toilets if their appearance is objectionable, AND (in certain circs) from third space toilets if it is not possible/feasible to have them"
Really? Thats not my understanding
It might be that stores going through refurb have switched previously gendered changing rooms to gender neutral after being fitted with proper full length lockable doors & so on? So if the Mens in a given store (say) still had curtains & no locks M+S might be leaving them gendered until they re-fit them?
What's the right punishment? Not sure, but what Southampton got is probably out of line with existing precedent, and certainly with how other clubs get treated.
Male
Female
Hermaphrodite
The latter by a clear nd unequivocal medical certificatarion
We've seen brutal and disgusting abuse of Castor Semenya for a genetic condition she was born with.
She deserves the respect if everyone and apology from many. As do all in that category.
There fare no other groups.
If people wish to be something different they should be allowed to live by their choice provided it's legal.
They cannot though expect the law to be written just for them.
Severely disabled people aged 16 and over will now be able to give consent to their care arrangements despite not having the capacity to do so, the Supreme Court has ruled.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e2lq58p87o
‘The biggest rollback of disability rights in a generation’ – Charities respond to Supreme Court ruling
...
The ruling effectively dismantles a landmark 2014 legal framework known as Cheshire West, which established a universal “acid test”. This means that if someone lacks the mental capacity to consent to their care and living arrangements, is under continuous supervision and control, and is not free to leave, they were legally ‘deprived of their liberty’. This triggered vital legal safeguards (DoLS), requiring an independent assessor to regularly inspect care homes, supported living arrangements, and locked units to ensure the placement is safe, justified, and in the person’s best interests. Today’s decision tears up those protections.
https://www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/the-biggest-rollback-of-disability-rights-in-a-generation-charities-respond-to-supreme-court-ruling/
Those zany funsters on the SC bench have done it again – and not just forcing trans people into disabled toilets.
So it was a high punishment, but it was the only proportionate one available as anything else would have been no punishment at all. The fact they initially lied and said no high level people were involved added to that, which is why I assume their appeal was rejected.
I maintain that other clubs at the time were likely doing similar things and Town were the scapegoat. Lou Macari, for instance, was fresh in the job after his time as a Man Utd player.
So the punishment Saints have had is exactly in line with precedent. But Town fans will all remember that Spurs had a very similar case not long after 1990 and were merely fined, and not relegated. So yes, it has precedent but yes Man City would not have been relegated/kicked out the play-offs.
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2025_0042_press_summary_3c58c87fdc.pdf
(IMHO having been to the SC and lost, the SC usually get these spot on. If someone's nose is out of joint, there's usually something in the background that's not immediately apparent)
Objecting to M&S having a badly thought through and poorly implemented scheme is entirely reasonable and not the same thing.
They messed up and need to fix it. That is a practical matter that is reasonable to point out.
The ruling, which will also be applied in England, Wales, and Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland, has said that a multifactorial approach will now be used in determining whether someone is deprived of their liberty, external.
Significantly a person's own wishes and preferences will be taken into consideration, however, unless they indicate an objection, it's unlikely that their living arrangements will be considered a deprivation of liberty.
It could potentially prove challenging for those in charge of providing care, as the court has acknowledged that people's ability to express their attitude towards their care arrangement will vary from case to case.
Northern Ireland's health minister now has the legal power to revise the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (doLS) Code of Practice, which oversees care arrangements for people without sufficient mental capacity.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
The principal contradiction of the contemporary epoch is no longer between labour and capital, but between the Working Class and the Working Class. Through decades of ideological contamination, the masses have abandoned revolutionary consciousness in favour of consumerism, football scores, discount televisions, and reactionary opinions acquired from the nearest public house. The proletariat, once heralded as the gravedigger of capitalism, has instead become its most diligent groundskeeper, faithfully reproducing bourgeois social relations while simultaneously complaining about them. Every worker is oppressed by capital, yet each worker also serves as a transmission belt for false consciousness, ensuring that genuine revolution remains permanently scheduled for next Tuesday.
Accordingly, the vanguard must recognise that the greatest obstacle to proletarian liberation is the proletariat itself. The worker who questions the Party line is objectively serving capital. The worker who agrees with the Party line is merely demonstrating the minimum acceptable level of ideological hygiene. The worker who remains undecided is engaging in counter-revolutionary fence-sitting. Thus, through rigorous dialectical analysis, we conclude that all sections of the working class are enemies of the working class, with the possible exception of a small study group of 4 theorists who have correctly interpreted all 2,447 volumes of revolutionary doctrine. History advances not through class struggle alone, but through increasingly specific denunciations of everyone who was previously considered an ally.
“13.145 If it is justified to provide a separate or single-sex service, then it will not be unlawful discrimination because of gender reassignment to prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service for their own sex, as long as doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (schedule 3, paragraph 28).
13.146 For example, a trans man might be excluded from the women-only service if the service provider decides that, because he presents as a man, other service users could reasonably object to his presence, and excluding him is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. ”
The section titled “Policies and exceptions for separate and single-sex services” twists itself into pretzel shaped knots to try and square the obligation that the Equality Act 2010 places on them to simultaneously not discriminate on the basis of sex or trans status whilst allowing the carve outs in the Act that permit discrimination on the basis of (biological) sex for approved purposes. But the above paragraphs make it very clear that they believe a trans-man who looks like a man can be excluded from female only services.
The text is full of mealy mouthed cop-outs of the form “The service provider ... should consider whether the disadvantage to trans people ... outweighs the benefits of achieving the legitimate aim.” Which is EHRC-speak for “you’re on your own if you rely on this guidance, have fun in court!”
1) Someone without mental capacity to look after themselves can't be deprived of their freedom - for example someone with dementia but physically active who wants to go outside and play in the traffic can't be locked in for their own safety
2) Someone without mental capacity whose representative thinks their care is not in their best interest (left soiled etc) can be coerced into saying they are happy with the care.
1) Go to https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/03/22/your-friend-susan/
2) Click on the bit that says "Appendices can be downloaded here" or see this link https://www.politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/i8y3e8i8xgtn.docx
3) Go to the Twelfth Appendices, specifically:
- Appendix 12b: Toilet Access To Trans People
- Appendix 12c. Use Of The Word “Should” Vs “Must”
- Appendix 12d. Worked Example One
- Appendix 12e. Worked Example Two
Appendix 12b explains how a trans man (FTM in old money) can be disqualified from…using the toilet of their birth sex - EHRC Guidance Section 13.5.5 and 13.5.6 says this explicitly
…using the toilet of the opposite birth sex - EHRC Guidance Section 13.3.7 says this explicitly and EHRC Guidance Sections 13.3.11 and 13.3.12 give examples of this
…using any other toilet - Although EHRC Guidance Section 13.5.7 says this is very unlikely to be proportionate, Section 13.4.8 gives a list of reasons why this is permissible
Worked examples one and two give scenarios where the trans man ("your other friend Kevin") is disqualified from two or more toilets.
(section numbers refer to the leaked final guidance or the interim guidance. The published final guidance may have different numbers)
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
5m
Reform really are descending into the gutter now. This is a total distortion of what Kemi Badenoch actually said. It’s another example of their increasingly desperate efforts to neutralise Restore.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2061839434367070617
Hopefully not that many, but enough to chase.
...then they could have peak green digestives.
Damian Thompson" (£)
https://spectator.com/article/weight-loss-drugs-killed-my-appetite-for-life
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/02/prepare-for-imminent-return-of-el-nino-un-warns
"He created false invoices, used the wrong codes for some items in the party’s books, transferred money directly out of the party’s accounts and used his SNP charge card and those of two SNP employees, without their knowledge, to buy things."
Daft bastard. But also, terrible and appalling financial admin by the SNP. No four eyes process? That's just asking for trouble.
It's a good example of how the law progresses in the background and what you thought is legal (or vice versa) suddenly becomes null and void.
Toilets anyone?