Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
Well obviously so. But should prisons also be rat infested, understaffed, and full of drugs?
Ideally no. But good luck with getting prisons to the top of the pile of those screaming for more money. In Scotland our solution is to let people out after ever shorter parts of their sentence. I had a death by dangerous driving case last week. The man, a foreign national, got 45 months. Of which he would normally serve about 40%. But in fact he is more likely to qualify for a tag on less than half of that. So a 45 month sentence may well turn out to be less than 45 weeks.
And the prisons are still overcrowded and dangerous.
It seems to be promoted by the Telegraph who see a 3 month bun fight an advantage, as they are worried that Burnham may well give Farage and Lowe a run for their money
Burnham offers hope and whilst I may be wrong I want him to succeed and not just be tribal
I think he's a tw@t and he overstepped the mark first thing re: Starmer's resignation. Since then he's been on point. Let's just hope he doesn't turn Downing Street in to the Hacienda in the same way Johnson turned it into Anabel's.
What has Starmer done with that hideous room Johnson created, assuming Sunak didn’t junk it already?
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
Well they will have to be locked up for the duration of their sentences to protect the public. Though yes rehabilitation work could be further developed. Compared to say the 19th century though prison conditions in the UK have improved
William "Spider" Scott has a spare "Y" chromosome in his cell structure, which makes him very tall but also gives him a compulsion to steal.
It's... 'just a tad' anachronistic - but an interesting TV time-capsule.
Played by Stephen Yardley, who went on to be Ken Masters in Howards' Way. Which I mention purely because Ken Masters is one of the most perfect matchings of name to character ever. Another memorable TV time-capsule if you're of a certain age.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Whilst I take your point, prison assignment is one of the two or three issues[1] in trans that have little to no public support and lots of disgust/revulsion. The Irish approach (self-ID but periodic review on difficult aspects) takes account of this and they are making cross-biological-sex prison accommodation illegal. The Scottish approach regarding prisons is unlikely to survive and I'm surprised they kept it going for so long.
Incidentally, I do remember that I promised to look up other country's approaches for you. I thought of compiling EU figures country by country but it would take too long. Instead I intend to take the ILGA-Rainbow Map figures and extract the trans stuff, which would be a lot quicker.
[1] You'd think it'd be toilets, but I think they're prison, rape crisis centres, and juvenile surgical/hormonal transition. I can investigate stats for these things but given that a non-trivial group of people think that the acceptable threshold is zero under any circumstances, there is unlikely to be a political consensus for them
My view on prisons specifically is that the primary determinant should be the safety of prisoners and staff. Decisions on this should be made as a risk assessment by the people managing the prisons. I could see this going either way, possibly on a case by case basis, as trans women and biological women both need to be protected. Sorry if you object to this as a prisoner - the point of prison is you don't get a say on your incarceration.
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
Well obviously so. But should prisons also be rat infested, understaffed, and full of drugs?
Ideally no. But good luck with getting prisons to the top of the pile of those screaming for more money. In Scotland our solution is to let people out after ever shorter parts of their sentence. I had a death by dangerous driving case last week. The man, a foreign national, got 45 months. Of which he would normally serve about 40%. But in fact he is more likely to qualify for a tag on less than half of that. So a 45 month sentence may well turn out to be less than 45 weeks.
And the prisons are still overcrowded and dangerous.
It is a very short term saving to economise on prisons by making them "an expensive way of making bad people worse" in the words of Douglas Hurd. These convicts have a very high rate of recidivism so as well as the social and financial chaos from their repeat offending, they are soon back in prison and costing £40 000 a year, until their next release, next crime spree etc.
There is very little relationship between incarceration rates and reducing crime. America has 25% of the worlds prison polulation but isn't noted for its civil peace, while many European countries have incarceration rates of half ours, but ofyen lower rates of crime.
Properly funded prisons with an emphasis on rehabilitation, drug treatment, alternatives to violence programmes and education are very likely to pay dividends in both criminal justice and social peace.
It is the same problem in my business. The work upstream to maintain health rather than try to salvage something from the wreckage is also good value, though less of a photo-op for politicians.
Ridiculous that the two networks couldn't agree on just using one, if they had to use one at all.
They could have AI video-genned it for a few quid. And then doubled-up with a 'How we made this using AI' programme, and a 'Is AI replacing real news footage?' earnest documentary. Coupled with a few website 'news' posts puffing both up. Posts written using gpt/claude obv - much cheaper - and gives a third stream of 'Is AI replacing news writing?' content. Down and down the terrible journalism spiral we go...
It's against the law to enter the country without permission, but the authorities don't seem to apply that law very much.
Important not to mislead. It is legal to enter the country with the intention of applying for asylum.
That's Plan B, for those who get caught.
Plan A is to disappear, live in a "shed with a bed" and work illegally.
I doubt that's Plan A because you're effectively trapped between modern slavery and deportation. If you've got a case for asylum then claiming asylum is a far better outcome.
Still can’t quite bring themselves to call it a terrorist attack despite the charges. If you look at the photos, you’ll note that he isn’t wearing a t-shirt, which might explain why.
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
Well obviously so. But should prisons also be rat infested, understaffed, and full of drugs?
Ideally no. But good luck with getting prisons to the top of the pile of those screaming for more money. In Scotland our solution is to let people out after ever shorter parts of their sentence. I had a death by dangerous driving case last week. The man, a foreign national, got 45 months. Of which he would normally serve about 40%. But in fact he is more likely to qualify for a tag on less than half of that. So a 45 month sentence may well turn out to be less than 45 weeks.
And the prisons are still overcrowded and dangerous.
It is a very short term saving to economise on prisons by making them "an expensive way of making bad people worse" in the words of Douglas Hurd. These convicts have a very high rate of recidivism so as well as the social and financial chaos from their repeat offending, they are soon back in prison and costing £40 000 a year, until their next release, next crime spree etc.
There is very little relationship between incarceration rates and reducing crime. America has 25% of the worlds prison polulation but isn't noted for its civil peace, while many European countries have incarceration rates of half ours, but ofyen lower rates of crime.
Properly funded prisons with an emphasis on rehabilitation, drug treatment, alternatives to violence programmes and education are very likely to pay dividends in both criminal justice and social peace.
It is the same problem in my business. The work upstream to maintain health rather than try to salvage something from the wreckage is also good value, though less of a photo-op for politicians.
I think it applies across the whole of government.
There is a way to cut future spending, but it involves investment up front, and we simply won't do it. As a result the cuts we do make end up increasing future spending by more than the cuts are worth today.
It's against the law to enter the country without permission, but the authorities don't seem to apply that law very much.
Important not to mislead. It is legal to enter the country with the intention of applying for asylum.
That's Plan B, for those who get caught.
Plan A is to disappear, live in a "shed with a bed" and work illegally.
That is simply not true as small boat arrivals are met by the Border Force either at sea or upon landing. They do not disappear, but rather claim asylum on arrival.
Illegal workers are almost all either visa over-stayers or people who arrived legally on a visa not permiting employment. In both cases they entered the country legally.
It's against the law to enter the country without permission, but the authorities don't seem to apply that law very much.
Important not to mislead. It is legal to enter the country with the intention of applying for asylum.
That's Plan B, for those who get caught.
Plan A is to disappear, live in a "shed with a bed" and work illegally.
I doubt that's Plan A because you're effectively trapped between modern slavery and deportation. If you've got a case for asylum then claiming asylum is a far better outcome.
It’s plan A, because they also have dreams of plans between C and ZZ. Which involve becoming richer.
Still can’t quite bring themselves to call it a terrorist attack despite the charges. If you look at the photos, you’ll note that he isn’t wearing a t-shirt, which might explain why.
One person arrested where all the witnesses confirm it was just him doesn't warrant a COBRA meeting - everything is know or at least discoverable.
Still can’t quite bring themselves to call it a terrorist attack despite the charges. If you look at the photos, you’ll note that he isn’t wearing a t-shirt, which might explain why.
One person arrested where all the witnesses confirm it was just him doesn't warrant a COBRA meeting - everything is know or at least discoverable.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
AIUI, an inverse case in Australia (Giggle vs Tickle) has demonstrated that biological women in that country have no rights that do not also belong to those claiming to be trans women. I believe they're currently campaigning to change that law.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
Fortunately, sea levels are only rising by about 0.4cm a year, so I’m sure we’ll be fine adapting.
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
It's not necessarily meaningless. Believing that the person in charge might have a clue about what needs to be done and how to go about doing it would be a reason to be hopeful that goes beyond just being entertained.
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
No, it literally means nothing.
'Hope' is something that humans arbitrarily make up in their own minds. Sometimes based on useful stuff like evidence and probability, but sometimes not.
Pertinent to this thread is this research paper, which I’ve linked to before: “‘She Was Just Like A Lassie’: Analysing The Views of Cis-Women In Custody About Their Experiences of Living With Transgender Women In The Scottish Prison Estate“, https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/4/1000/6370239
The paper is based on interviews with 15 women prisoners in Scotland. I think it’s useful to actually hear from the people under discussion. They have differing views, but there’s mostly acceptance there of those cases they consider genuine, but unhappiness and distrust of others they see as just playing the system.
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
He offers hope to those who want higher tax on high earners, property owners and landowners, more spending and nationalisations. Not much to amyone else
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
It is about being positive, rather than simply against things, as @NickPalmer was saying the other day.
Most contemporary politicians are noted for what they oppose, and certainly relentless negative campaigning works as a political strategy. It does rather rot the national soul, and leads to things like Starmer, elected for what he is not, rather than what he is (or was).
It is rare for politicians to exude positivity and optimism in a credible way. Tony Blair did, Johnson did, Polanski often does, and now Burnham does. Lets see if it works.
Forcing people to sell family homes on the death of a partner is not a good look. Most families don't hold 10% of the value their assets in easily accessible cash so would either have to sell or take out a loan.
The special carve out for family homes is one of the main reasons the housing market is so ridiculously overpriced, and why pensioners cling onto family homes. We should tax them more than other assets, not the other way round.
But IHT is stupid tax in general. Replace it and CT with an annual 1% property tax.
IHT is a stupid tax because it is only paid by those who are both unprepared and middle class.
Those who are wealthy and/or oganized simply route around it.
It would make much more sense, as has been noted before, to follow the example of Trusts, and simply have a small annual levy (say 0.3% of land value, which would raise 23bn).
That would raise as much as IHT and Capital Gains (which between them raise 22bn, with 8bn being IHT and 14bn being Stamp Duty), and be much fairer.
The other advantage of this is that it would take in foreign owners of British land, where we currently collect almost no taxes.
The problem with that yet again is that it is a policy that makes sense for large parts of the country outside London and the SE but for the 28% of the population who do live there it will make it impossible for anyone on normal average wages to own their own house.
The median price of a terraced house in London is £680,000. The same for a flat is £450,000. Asking someone working in the public sector to find £6,800 a year (when currently they are paying around £2,200) seems completely unrealistic.
For me in Lincolnshire it would mean paying a bit more but not much even though I live in something of a country pile.
Given the massive discrepencies between regions, any sort of national system based on a % of the property value seems completely unrealitic.
That’s what levelling looks like, I’m afraid. If a 1% flat rate looks mad then it’s not the tax that is the problem. House values will respond, mitigating that impact - setting up in the NE of England would suddenly look much more attractive.
Indeed, to invert this complaint - why does someone in Middlesbrough pay 4% while a millionaire in London can pay 0.4%?
Well, if it is about local services then the Millionaire in London is using no more of them than the Millionaire in Middlesborough (they do have them you know)
But more importantly this is a classic case of ideology trying to trump reality. In reality the only way you are going to see those house prices in London collapse to a point where people can affford the 1% a year LVT is if everyone leaves. So no schools, no services, no one working in the shops.
It is yet another example of infantile, simplistic ideology crashing headlong into real life.
Stanislaw Lem once wrote a great Sci-Fi short story - a veiled critique of Soviet Poland - about an absolute ruler who decided he wanted his people to adapt to an amphibious existence. He did it by raising the water level on the planet by 1cm every year in the belief that the people would adapt to the new environment. Of course they all just drowned.
Fortunately, sea levels are only rising by about 0.4cm a year, so I’m sure we’ll be fine adapting.
"You only remember one deluge, though there have been many previous ones." - Egyptian priest to Solon in Plato's "Timaeus".
"I don't call him Ronaldo I call him Cristiano here is only one Ronaldo and he wore 9 not 7" Henry just hit the hardest slide tackle of the entire world cup while standing in the studio
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
It is about being positive, rather than simply against things, as @NickPalmer was saying the other day.
Most contemporary politicians are noted for what they oppose, and certainly relentless negative campaigning works as a political strategy. It does rather rot the national soul, and leads to things like Starmer, elected for what he is not, rather than what he is (or was).
It is rare for politicians to exude positivity and optimism in a credible way. Tony Blair did, Johnson did, Polanski often does, and now Burnham does. Lets see if it works.
It also helps if you can display empathy and understand that image is important.
Still can’t quite bring themselves to call it a terrorist attack despite the charges. If you look at the photos, you’ll note that he isn’t wearing a t-shirt, which might explain why.
One person arrested where all the witnesses confirm it was just him doesn't warrant a COBRA meeting - everything is know or at least discoverable.
And yet Golders Green did?
A Muslim was stabbed by that guy earlier that day.
It's against the law to enter the country without permission, but the authorities don't seem to apply that law very much.
Important not to mislead. It is legal to enter the country with the intention of applying for asylum.
That's Plan B, for those who get caught.
Plan A is to disappear, live in a "shed with a bed" and work illegally.
This isn’t true. Those coming over on small boats mostly claim asylum at the first opportunity. That’s their plan. It’s obviously difficult getting accurate statistics, but the government estimates very few come over on a boat with the plan to disappear.
Some who come over on boats and claim asylum then work illegally. It is usually (but not always) illegal for those going through the asylum process to work.
There are, however, at a very rough estimate around 300,000 visa overstayers in the country. These are people who have entered the country legally, on a visa, but then who stay beyond what the visa allows. These are more likely to be in the living in a shed with a bed circumstance.
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
It is about being positive, rather than simply against things, as @NickPalmer was saying the other day.
Most contemporary politicians are noted for what they oppose, and certainly relentless negative campaigning works as a political strategy. It does rather rot the national soul, and leads to things like Starmer, elected for what he is not, rather than what he is (or was).
It is rare for politicians to exude positivity and optimism in a credible way. Tony Blair did, Johnson did, Polanski often does, and now Burnham does. Lets see if it works.
It also helps if you can display empathy and understand that image is important.
I think Empathy and Emotional Intelligence are a key part of positivity, and of communication skills. These things come as a bundle.
I will de-lurk for one post to comment on today’s huge events.
Few will mourn the premiership of Keir Starmer. A man who may well have had noble intentions, but who could not rise to the challenges that he was tasked with meeting.
My prediction: Andy Burnham’s premiership is a looming disaster for Labour.
The smiling MPs at the photoshoot, the cheers in the Commons, the breathless statements of support belie one fact: this is a man who is being parachuted into the very top of politics without a mandate, without a debate, without his views being tested beyond a few thousand voters in the north west. He will find his legitimacy tested at the first sign of trouble. And the problems in this country run far deeper than the person at the top. The radical change that is needed, simply cannot be enacted under the mandate won by a departing prime minister replaced by a man who was not even an MP at the last general election.
Burnham’s only path to success is to submit himself to the judgement of the country, set out his stall, and obtain a fresh mandate for change at a general election. It is a gamble, but the only way he can lay strong foundations for his leadership and hope to move the country into a new era. If he does not, I expect his honeymoon to be short, and his premiership to be ultimately doomed.
Still can’t quite bring themselves to call it a terrorist attack despite the charges. If you look at the photos, you’ll note that he isn’t wearing a t-shirt, which might explain why.
One person arrested where all the witnesses confirm it was just him doesn't warrant a COBRA meeting - everything is know or at least discoverable.
And yet Golders Green did?
A Muslim was stabbed by that guy earlier that day.
As I understand it, that was a personal friend, he then caught the Tube to Golders Green where he carried out a spree stabbing of Jews.
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
Well obviously so. But should prisons also be rat infested, understaffed, and full of drugs?
Ideally no. But good luck with getting prisons to the top of the pile of those screaming for more money. In Scotland our solution is to let people out after ever shorter parts of their sentence. I had a death by dangerous driving case last week. The man, a foreign national, got 45 months. Of which he would normally serve about 40%. But in fact he is more likely to qualify for a tag on less than half of that. So a 45 month sentence may well turn out to be less than 45 weeks.
And the prisons are still overcrowded and dangerous.
It is a very short term saving to economise on prisons by making them "an expensive way of making bad people worse" in the words of Douglas Hurd. These convicts have a very high rate of recidivism so as well as the social and financial chaos from their repeat offending, they are soon back in prison and costing £40 000 a year, until their next release, next crime spree etc.
There is very little relationship between incarceration rates and reducing crime. America has 25% of the worlds prison polulation but isn't noted for its civil peace, while many European countries have incarceration rates of half ours, but ofyen lower rates of crime.
Properly funded prisons with an emphasis on rehabilitation, drug treatment, alternatives to violence programmes and education are very likely to pay dividends in both criminal justice and social peace.
It is the same problem in my business. The work upstream to maintain health rather than try to salvage something from the wreckage is also good value, though less of a photo-op for politicians.
The US recidivism rate is actually about average, Norway, Singapore and South Korea the best
Life is probably about to get a lot more difficult for Nigel Farage, because he was more charismatic than Starmer but Burnham could prove to be more charismatic than Farage.
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
Well obviously so. But should prisons also be rat infested, understaffed, and full of drugs?
Ideally no. But good luck with getting prisons to the top of the pile of those screaming for more money. In Scotland our solution is to let people out after ever shorter parts of their sentence. I had a death by dangerous driving case last week. The man, a foreign national, got 45 months. Of which he would normally serve about 40%. But in fact he is more likely to qualify for a tag on less than half of that. So a 45 month sentence may well turn out to be less than 45 weeks.
And the prisons are still overcrowded and dangerous.
It is a very short term saving to economise on prisons by making them "an expensive way of making bad people worse" in the words of Douglas Hurd. These convicts have a very high rate of recidivism so as well as the social and financial chaos from their repeat offending, they are soon back in prison and costing £40 000 a year, until their next release, next crime spree etc.
There is very little relationship between incarceration rates and reducing crime. America has 25% of the worlds prison polulation but isn't noted for its civil peace, while many European countries have incarceration rates of half ours, but ofyen lower rates of crime.
Properly funded prisons with an emphasis on rehabilitation, drug treatment, alternatives to violence programmes and education are very likely to pay dividends in both criminal justice and social peace.
It is the same problem in my business. The work upstream to maintain health rather than try to salvage something from the wreckage is also good value, though less of a photo-op for politicians.
Early in my career, a systems design course had a case study which postulated prisons were designed to be ideal universities for criminals.
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
One of the major problems with our prisons is that many of those who end up there are not very nice people. They are selfish, greedy, arrogant, all too often suffering from personality disorders, violent and not entirely honest. Locking them up together in a confined space is highly problematic from a risk assessment point of view.
Well obviously so. But should prisons also be rat infested, understaffed, and full of drugs?
Ideally no. But good luck with getting prisons to the top of the pile of those screaming for more money. In Scotland our solution is to let people out after ever shorter parts of their sentence. I had a death by dangerous driving case last week. The man, a foreign national, got 45 months. Of which he would normally serve about 40%. But in fact he is more likely to qualify for a tag on less than half of that. So a 45 month sentence may well turn out to be less than 45 weeks.
And the prisons are still overcrowded and dangerous.
It is a very short term saving to economise on prisons by making them "an expensive way of making bad people worse" in the words of Douglas Hurd. These convicts have a very high rate of recidivism so as well as the social and financial chaos from their repeat offending, they are soon back in prison and costing £40 000 a year, until their next release, next crime spree etc.
There is very little relationship between incarceration rates and reducing crime. America has 25% of the worlds prison polulation but isn't noted for its civil peace, while many European countries have incarceration rates of half ours, but ofyen lower rates of crime.
Properly funded prisons with an emphasis on rehabilitation, drug treatment, alternatives to violence programmes and education are very likely to pay dividends in both criminal justice and social peace.
It is the same problem in my business. The work upstream to maintain health rather than try to salvage something from the wreckage is also good value, though less of a photo-op for politicians.
The US recidivism rate is actually about average, Norway, Singapore and South Korea the best
The underlying issue is the state doesn’t give a fuck about the incarcerated. .
IMO everyone held against their will should be safe. Properly safe. Safer than on the streets. The above discussion accepts that prisoners will be unsafe.
If people were safe when institutionalised, the approach to trans etc could be more positive.
(. They should have a vote too. )
Yes, our prisons are truly disgusting. It is hard to see how anyone comes out a better person.
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
He offers hope to those who want higher tax on high earners, property owners and landowners, more spending and nationalisations. Not much to amyone else
That’s probably a majority he’s offering hope to then.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Andy Burnham will use a speech next week to pledge to grow the economy and commit to Labour’s fiscal rules, as he prepares to enter Downing Street after the resignation of Sir Keir Starmer
Burnham will use the speech early next week to attempt to bolster his economic credentials amid concern in the markets about his premiership
He will promise to reduce the national debt and the cost of borrowing as he sets out a “credible” plan for growth within the current fiscal rules
The Times has been told that he is choosing between Miliband, the energy secretary; Wes Streeting, the former health secretary; and Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, as his chancellor
He is yet to reach a decision but is said to want to avoid appearing “factional” as he appoints his cabinet
Miliband had been favourite for the role but has been the subject of briefings by cabinet colleagues who believe he is not pro-business enough and will undermine market confidence. This is categorically rejected by Miliband’s allies, who say he is the only candidate with the experience and vision to transform the economy
Streeting emerged as a frontrunner for the chancellorship after he announced that he will back Burnham less than two hours after Starmer’s Downing Street speech. He said he believes that Burnham can deliver “the change our country needs” and that he does not want to spend the summer “exaggerating our small differences” in a contest
Mahmood is said to want to stay on as home secretary but is still being viewed by Burnham as a serious contender for the role
In a further attempt to reassure the markets, Burnham is expected to offer Lord O’Neill of Gatley, a former Goldman Sachs banker and Treasury minister, and Andy Haldane, a former chief economist at the Bank of England, roles in his government
The Times has been told that the defence investment plan — which led to a series of extraordinary rows culminating in the resignation of John Healey as defence secretary — is likely to be delayed until Burnham is prime minister. Burnham is said to be keen to examine the plans and make the decision himself
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
If parliament has made conflicting laws it’s its responsibility to solve the mess. The courts just say what the law is.
Life is probably about to get a lot more difficult for Nigel Farage, because he was more charismatic than Starmer but Burnham could prove to be more charismatic than Farage.
Especially if Farage continues to communicate to the public through the medium of hostage videos.
Sooner or later, he's going to have to do the sort of interview or press conference where a hostile journalist can ask him the five million pound question.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Life is probably about to get a lot more difficult for Nigel Farage, because he was more charismatic than Starmer but Burnham could prove to be more charismatic than Farage.
Especially if Farage continues to communicate to the public through the medium of hostage videos.
Sooner or later, he's going to have to do the sort of interview or press conference where a hostile journalist can ask him the five million pound question.
Which would be silly.
10 questions at £500,000 each would be far better.
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
He offers hope to those who want higher tax on high earners, property owners and landowners, more spending and nationalisations. Not much to amyone else
That’s probably a majority he’s offering hope to then.
Depends on whether most home owners have to pay his social care levy or not
People are overlooking the very real tragedy of Starmer's resignation. That is that Lord Hermer may no longer be the Attorney General. Is there somewhere we can write to in support of his continued tenure? I fear for the ship of state without his firm hand on the tiller.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Dunt's example (one of many he gives, of how the code will play out in practice):
"What happens when a female trans patient is blue-lighted into hospital in an emergency? She can’t be admitted into the women’s ward. She won’t go to the men’s ward. So she’ll be sat in A&E for longer, accommodated eventually in a side room, held back from treatment. And once she’s in that side room, what happens? She will displace the people who are supposed to be there for clinical reasons - because they have a high infection risk, say, or have a compromised immune system. Trans people will be delayed and cared for away from the specialist ward. Cis people will be deprived of the spaces they need for clinical reasons. Who wins? Nobody. Nobody at all. None of this has any meaning whatsoever. It is just a needless act of administrative bother and political self-harm."
People are overlooking the very real tragedy of Starmer's resignation. That is that Lord Hermer may no longer be the Attorney General. Is there somewhere we can write to in support of his continued tenure? I fear for the ship of state without his firm hand on the tiller.
I have to say I have lost track of the Chagos issue.
People are overlooking the very real tragedy of Starmer's resignation. That is that Lord Hermer may no longer be the Attorney General. Is there somewhere we can write to in support of his continued tenure? I fear for the ship of state without his firm hand on the tiller.
I have to say I have lost track of the Chagos issue.
Have we now sold them to Trump?
It is in abeyance because Trump decided against it. I don't think Burnham will be dusting it down any time soon.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Dunt's example (one of many he gives, of how the code will play out in practice):
"What happens when a female trans patient is blue-lighted into hospital in an emergency? She can’t be admitted into the women’s ward. She won’t go to the men’s ward. So she’ll be sat in A&E for longer, accommodated eventually in a side room, held back from treatment. And once she’s in that side room, what happens? She will displace the people who are supposed to be there for clinical reasons - because they have a high infection risk, say, or have a compromised immune system. Trans people will be delayed and cared for away from the specialist ward. Cis people will be deprived of the spaces they need for clinical reasons. Who wins? Nobody. Nobody at all. None of this has any meaning whatsoever. It is just a needless act of administrative bother and political self-harm."
Overblown. If she's blue lit in, she'll take whatever treatment is coming.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Yes, and one of the paradoxes of the Reform Party proposing to repeal the Equality Act is that it removes the legal basis for single biological sex facilities.
So, a rather topsy-turvey unintentional increase Trans access.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Dunt's example (one of many he gives, of how the code will play out in practice):
"What happens when a female trans patient is blue-lighted into hospital in an emergency? She can’t be admitted into the women’s ward. She won’t go to the men’s ward. So she’ll be sat in A&E for longer, accommodated eventually in a side room, held back from treatment. And once she’s in that side room, what happens? She will displace the people who are supposed to be there for clinical reasons - because they have a high infection risk, say, or have a compromised immune system. Trans people will be delayed and cared for away from the specialist ward. Cis people will be deprived of the spaces they need for clinical reasons. Who wins? Nobody. Nobody at all. None of this has any meaning whatsoever. It is just a needless act of administrative bother and political self-harm."
Overblown. If she's blue lit in, she'll take whatever treatment is coming.
You don't seem to understand. She won't, because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward. So the NHS won't put her there. That is what Foxy was getting at, in his above post. And also what Dunt goes on to describe in several other scenarios. Basically, you're liable as a service provider to be sued by TERFs if you admit trans women, but if you don't give trans women "separate but equal treatment" (which is an incredibly subjective term in itself creating liability) then you get sued by the trans person due to the existence of their protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
Dunt inevitably concludes - and I agree with him on this - that it will lead to far more spaces that are currently gendered becoming gender neutral. Meaning fewer spaces for women (cis and otherwise). Which is why I said, sarcastically, that Sex Matters will surely be jumping for joy at the outcome the code will deliver.
"What was the flaw at the heart of the Starmer project? It was that it had no heart. Starmer, in the end, was simply was not interested in politics.
None of us could believe this. Why in god’s name would someone who is fundamentally uninterested in politics end up as prime minister? It’s just too weird. It’s like me becoming a football manager. So instead of accepting this basic explanation we projected all sorts of qualities onto him. But the basic truth was as simple as it was ruinous. He just wasn’t that into it. He simply wasn’t very interested.
Starmer was an absence. He was absent on leadership, absent on policy, absent on values, absent on everything beyond the nuts and bolts of process, which seemed the only level on which he engaged with political debate at all."
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
It's like "respect", "dignity" and "change". Meaningless noises that can't be measured. Many of you who work in offices with yearly assessments will be familiar with SMART goals - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound. "Hope" is none of these things.
Starmer's resignation speech annoyed me because he used a lot of hopey-changey words, and the rest were just mawkishly sentimental or just plain lies. Politics needs to get out of this semantic trap.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Surely if you go to A&E your life is at risk, so it really doesn't matter much if someone sees your willy
If only people with life threatening illnesses went to A&E the place would be a lot quieter.
Well, you should do proper triage and send people home if they are not going to die. I've watched Mash, I know what triage is, it seems the NHS doesn't
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Dunt's example (one of many he gives, of how the code will play out in practice):
"What happens when a female trans patient is blue-lighted into hospital in an emergency? She can’t be admitted into the women’s ward. She won’t go to the men’s ward. So she’ll be sat in A&E for longer, accommodated eventually in a side room, held back from treatment. And once she’s in that side room, what happens? She will displace the people who are supposed to be there for clinical reasons - because they have a high infection risk, say, or have a compromised immune system. Trans people will be delayed and cared for away from the specialist ward. Cis people will be deprived of the spaces they need for clinical reasons. Who wins? Nobody. Nobody at all. None of this has any meaning whatsoever. It is just a needless act of administrative bother and political self-harm."
Overblown. If she's blue lit in, she'll take whatever treatment is coming.
You don't seem to understand. She won't, because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward. So the NHS won't put her there. That is what Foxy was getting at, in his above post. And also what Dunt goes on to describe in several other scenarios. Basically, you're liable as a service provider to be sued by TERFs if you admit trans women, but if you don't give trans women "separate but equal treatment" (which is an incredibly subjective term in itself creating liability) then you get sued by the trans person due to the existence of their protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
Dunt inevitably concludes - and I agree with him on this - that it will lead to far more spaces that are currently gendered becoming gender neutral. Meaning fewer spaces for women (cis and otherwise). Which is why I said, sarcastically, that Sex Matters will surely be jumping for joy at the outcome the code will deliver.
Sue the NHS? Nice people. FFS. Hospitals would be better if all patients were in single rooms.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Is A and E gendered!? Last time I went twas just cubicles for whomever happened to be in it.
Dunt's example (one of many he gives, of how the code will play out in practice):
"What happens when a female trans patient is blue-lighted into hospital in an emergency? She can’t be admitted into the women’s ward. She won’t go to the men’s ward. So she’ll be sat in A&E for longer, accommodated eventually in a side room, held back from treatment. And once she’s in that side room, what happens? She will displace the people who are supposed to be there for clinical reasons - because they have a high infection risk, say, or have a compromised immune system. Trans people will be delayed and cared for away from the specialist ward. Cis people will be deprived of the spaces they need for clinical reasons. Who wins? Nobody. Nobody at all. None of this has any meaning whatsoever. It is just a needless act of administrative bother and political self-harm."
Overblown. If she's blue lit in, she'll take whatever treatment is coming.
You don't seem to understand. She won't, because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward. So the NHS won't put her there. That is what Foxy was getting at, in his above post. And also what Dunt goes on to describe in several other scenarios. Basically, you're liable as a service provider to be sued by TERFs if you admit trans women, but if you don't give trans women "separate but equal treatment" (which is an incredibly subjective term in itself creating liability) then you get sued by the trans person due to the existence of their protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
Dunt inevitably concludes - and I agree with him on this - that it will lead to far more spaces that are currently gendered becoming gender neutral. Meaning fewer spaces for women (cis and otherwise). Which is why I said, sarcastically, that Sex Matters will surely be jumping for joy at the outcome the code will deliver.
Sue the NHS? Nice people. FFS. Hospitals would be better if all patients were in single rooms.
Self ID is in place in several countries without widespread abuse. Our regime on gender change is tracking to be one of the most exclusionary and restrictive. Perhaps this is to some extent a kickback against over-zealous trans activism but I think it's a shame. We are making a meal of this imo and it's not helping anyone.
Not really.
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
Though also Gender Reassignment is also a protected Characteristic under the Equality Act. So we have the legal decision that single sex facilities are restricted to biological women (when reasonable to do so to achieve a proportionate goal) but also it is illegal to discriminate directly or indirectly against those who are undergoing Gender Reassignment.
Ian Dunt has covered this in forensic detail, including the harm it will cause, when, say, people go to A&E (trans people, for being kept waiting for "gender neutral" side rooms, and cis people for having fewer side rooms (where infectious diseases are frequently triaged), for example. And disabled people having fewer facilities. He concludes that from a risk management perspective (risk of being sued by a trans person for discrimination/unequal treatment or being sued by a terf for having to pee in a locked cubicle next to a trans woman) most toilets, changing rooms etc will become gender neutral. An interesting outcome I'm sure Sex Matters will pat themselves on the back about, right?
Comments
Whether you think it right or wrong is beside the point. It is legal to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_FLq4zJOdk
All that happened was the SC said “this is what the law is and parliament can change it if they want”
So far parliament has chosen not to change it
That might have been a better use for a private members bill perhaps?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075601/ It's... 'just a tad' anachronistic - but an interesting TV time-capsule.
And the prisons are still overcrowded and dangerous.
Plan A is to disappear, live in a "shed with a bed" and work illegally.
Man charged with five counts of attempted murder linked to terrorism, after alleged anti-Muslim attacks in Edinburgh
https://x.com/bbcbreaking/status/2069122166793150875?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Don’t you like peace?
There is very little relationship between incarceration rates and reducing crime. America has 25% of the worlds prison polulation but isn't noted for its civil peace, while many European countries have incarceration rates of half ours, but ofyen lower rates of crime.
Properly funded prisons with an emphasis on rehabilitation, drug treatment, alternatives to violence programmes and education are very likely to pay dividends in both criminal justice and social peace.
It is the same problem in my business. The work upstream to maintain health rather than try to salvage something from the wreckage is also good value, though less of a photo-op for politicians.
There is a way to cut future spending, but it involves investment up front, and we simply won't do it. As a result the cuts we do make end up increasing future spending by more than the cuts are worth today.
Illegal workers are almost all either visa over-stayers or people who arrived legally on a visa not permiting employment. In both cases they entered the country legally.
(But the BBC is on a hiding to nothing. If Sky does it and it doesn’t then it’s “stodgy”. If they do it they are “wasteful”)
But what does "offering hope" actually mean?
It seems to me that it is nothing more than elaborate talk for the purpose of entertaining people.
It contains nothing whatsoever of substance.
But the thing is that it does give quite a few people what they want - because many people just want to be entertained.
Surely the same moral calculus applies here?
'Hope' is something that humans arbitrarily make up in their own minds. Sometimes based on useful stuff like evidence and probability, but sometimes not.
The paper is based on interviews with 15 women prisoners in Scotland. I think it’s useful to actually hear from the people under discussion. They have differing views, but there’s mostly acceptance there of those cases they consider genuine, but unhappiness and distrust of others they see as just playing the system.
Most contemporary politicians are noted for what they oppose, and certainly relentless negative campaigning works as a political strategy. It does rather rot the national soul, and leads to things like Starmer, elected for what he is not, rather than what he is (or was).
It is rare for politicians to exude positivity and optimism in a credible way. Tony Blair did, Johnson did, Polanski often does, and now Burnham does. Lets see if it works.
He needs to be prepared to have arguments and win them. And then ask his MPs to vote them through as confidence motions.
"I don't call him Ronaldo I call him Cristiano here is only one Ronaldo and he wore 9 not 7" Henry just hit the hardest slide tackle of the entire world cup while standing in the studio
Some who come over on boats and claim asylum then work illegally. It is usually (but not always) illegal for those going through the asylum process to work.
There are, however, at a very rough estimate around 300,000 visa overstayers in the country. These are people who have entered the country legally, on a visa, but then who stay beyond what the visa allows. These are more likely to be in the living in a shed with a bed circumstance.
Few will mourn the premiership of Keir Starmer. A man who may well have had noble intentions, but who could not rise to the challenges that he was tasked with meeting.
My prediction: Andy Burnham’s premiership is a looming disaster for Labour.
The smiling MPs at the photoshoot, the cheers in the Commons, the breathless statements of support belie one fact: this is a man who is being parachuted into the very top of politics without a mandate, without a debate, without his views being tested beyond a few thousand voters in the north west. He will find his legitimacy tested at the first sign of trouble. And the problems in this country run far deeper than the person at the top. The radical change that is needed, simply cannot be enacted under the mandate won by a departing prime minister replaced by a man who was not even an MP at the last general election.
Burnham’s only path to success is to submit himself to the judgement of the country, set out his stall, and obtain a fresh mandate for change at a general election. It is a gamble, but the only way he can lay strong foundations for his leadership and hope to move the country into a new era. If he does not, I expect his honeymoon to be short, and his premiership to be ultimately doomed.
Trump kicks Starmer while he's down: "This is not Churchill we're dealing with"
Who from Labour served less time as PM????
No way are Reform ready.
"Recidivism Rates by Country 2026" https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country
https://iandunt.substack.com/p/the-ehrc-trans-code-explained
Burnham will use the speech early next week to attempt to bolster his economic credentials amid concern in the markets about his premiership
He will promise to reduce the national debt and the cost of borrowing as he sets out a “credible” plan for growth within the current fiscal rules
The Times has been told that he is choosing between Miliband, the energy secretary; Wes Streeting, the former health secretary; and Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, as his chancellor
He is yet to reach a decision but is said to want to avoid appearing “factional” as he appoints his cabinet
Miliband had been favourite for the role but has been the subject of briefings by cabinet colleagues who believe he is not pro-business enough and will undermine market confidence. This is categorically rejected by Miliband’s allies, who say he is the only candidate with the experience and vision to transform the economy
Streeting emerged as a frontrunner for the chancellorship after he announced that he will back Burnham less than two hours after Starmer’s Downing Street speech. He said he believes that Burnham can deliver “the change our country needs” and that he does not want to spend the summer “exaggerating our small differences” in a contest
Mahmood is said to want to stay on as home secretary but is still being viewed by Burnham as a serious contender for the role
In a further attempt to reassure the markets, Burnham is expected to offer Lord O’Neill of Gatley, a former Goldman Sachs banker and Treasury minister, and Andy Haldane, a former chief economist at the Bank of England, roles in his government
The Times has been told that the defence investment plan — which led to a series of extraordinary rows culminating in the resignation of John Healey as defence secretary — is likely to be delayed until Burnham is prime minister. Burnham is said to be keen to examine the plans and make the decision himself
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2069167708885664116
Sooner or later, he's going to have to do the sort of interview or press conference where a hostile journalist can ask him the five million pound question.
10 questions at £500,000 each would be far better.
https://x.com/lukeakehurst/status/2069133105995129301
"What happens when a female trans patient is blue-lighted into hospital in an emergency? She can’t be admitted into the women’s ward. She won’t go to the men’s ward. So she’ll be sat in A&E for longer, accommodated eventually in a side room, held back from treatment. And once she’s in that side room, what happens? She will displace the people who are supposed to be there for clinical reasons - because they have a high infection risk, say, or have a compromised immune system. Trans people will be delayed and cared for away from the specialist ward. Cis people will be deprived of the spaces they need for clinical reasons. Who wins? Nobody. Nobody at all. None of this has any meaning whatsoever. It is just a needless act of administrative bother and political self-harm."
Have we now sold them to Trump?
NEW: Andy Burnham is choosing between Ed Miliband, Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood to become his Chancellor
[@thetimes]
Hmmmm...
So, a rather topsy-turvey unintentional increase Trans access.
Dunt inevitably concludes - and I agree with him on this - that it will lead to far more spaces that are currently gendered becoming gender neutral. Meaning fewer spaces for women (cis and otherwise). Which is why I said, sarcastically, that Sex Matters will surely be jumping for joy at the outcome the code will deliver.
"What was the flaw at the heart of the Starmer project? It was that it had no heart. Starmer, in the end, was simply was not interested in politics.
None of us could believe this. Why in god’s name would someone who is fundamentally uninterested in politics end up as prime minister? It’s just too weird. It’s like me becoming a football manager. So instead of accepting this basic explanation we projected all sorts of qualities onto him. But the basic truth was as simple as it was ruinous. He just wasn’t that into it. He simply wasn’t very interested.
Starmer was an absence. He was absent on leadership, absent on policy, absent on values, absent on everything beyond the nuts and bolts of process, which seemed the only level on which he engaged with political debate at all."
https://iandunt.substack.com/p/the-tragedy-of-keir-starmer
If he commands the support of the House of Commons has has a mandate.
That's the f*cking system we have.
Starmer's resignation speech annoyed me because he used a lot of hopey-changey words, and the rest were just mawkishly sentimental or just plain lies. Politics needs to get out of this semantic trap.
Hospitals would be better if all patients were in single rooms.
Ed M is too divisive even though I like him personally.