Could Jennifer James run an independent campaign? It sounds like she could pull in a fair number of votes.
She could run as an independent in one constituency. Historically this has been more successful as a tactic to raise awareness about a particular issue than to get political representation, though it has happened in the past that a single issue MP has been elected (for example Roger Taylor stood for election on the basis of opposing the closure of the local hospital in Kidderminster). There are two main problems, however: firstly, getting sufficient support in a single place (JJ might get elected if there were a MN Constituency, but we are scattered all over the country, or indeed world); secondly, even when elected it is very very difficult for an independent MP to wield much clout in Parliament. Even the prominent and respected former journalist Martin Bell had limited impact in Parliament - though in the current times of tiny majorities, perhaps that has also changed a little in favour of the independent MP.
I worry about the ballot spoiling as then you're stuck with whoever the rest of the public decide on, but then I don't know... do the spoiled votes make an impact on British politics?
That's a risk... Better to vote for the least worst option or make a political point and end up with the very worst option? Voters who support smaller parties make this sort of decision all the time - is it a "wasted vote" to vote for someone who you know will never get in? Personally, I think that this is a case by case consideration: in my constituency, it's almost certain that there will always be a Tory MP because of the demographics of the area. Therefore, if I don't want to vote Tory but want to support another party I can do so knowing that it won't affect the overall outcome of the election but it might help indicate to that party that they do have a small support base in the area. But sometimes, if it's too close to call, it might be wiser to, say, vote Tory in order to lessen the chances of UKIP getting elected instead, even if that means that it's not really a proper representation of your views.
Spoiled papers only really make an impression on the general public (rather than politics fans) if there are particularly large numbers of them; they are part of a publicised and coordinated campaign; they have an impact on the final result (a sitting candidate doesn't get returned and loses by a similar number as the amount spoiled votes, for example); or the spoiled ballots are amusing or reportable in some way (like this Buzzfeed article on spoiled ballots - spoiler alert (pun intended), there are a lot of badly drawn knobs)
Have the conservatives stated their position since the shite hit the fan? What party was David Davis (the one who let the debate occur at HoC) from? What was his party's stance?
David Davis is a Conservative MP. The Conservatives are being quite quiet at the moment - I suspect that they have been waiting to see where Labour go with the AWS issue (they don't have AWS, so it's not a direct issue for them). Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, has made some encouraging noises about preserving sex based protections for women, and individual MPs have said supportive things, like Liz Truss supporting Justine MN's insistence that there should be space to debate the issues. But there's not been an official party policy update, as far as I'm aware. The government line is still that there will be a consultation on self-ID this summer, but I can see that slipping and slipping and slipping, as quite simply Brexit and Syria are occupying too much capacity across government and in Parliament to give room for a difficult consultation on something that is not so time-sensitive.