Kate Osborne MP: 'My NY Resolution is to block T*rfs'

The Nolan principles appear to be what Pratchett called a 'write only' document.

I will be actively supporting the new Party Of Women in 2024. For actual biological Women.

Standing for Women have a Barrister on the case now as a “They / them” at the electoral commission have blocked two previous applications on technicalities.

This is the state of democracy in the UK.
I have always voted Labour previously.

Presumably she's never read the Nolan principles of public life - or maybe not understood them:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2

And just to repeat the views of Jess Phillips, Yvette Cooper and other labour women about her appointment as an MP:
'If Kate Osborne is selected, it would undermine any claim our party makes to stand resolutely against the harassment and intimidation of women in public life.'

Something that Osborne appears to showcase for the LP regularly.

This link provides an overview.

https://cspl.blog.gov.uk/2021/11/26/the-committee-on-standards-in-public-life-the-house-of-commons-committee-on-standards-and-the-parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards-who-they-are-and-what-they-do/

@TWETMIRF When the fragrant Erik Pickles abolished the standards board, it affected everything from Parish Councils to the House of Lords

At a parish level it would be the council firstly but if not sorted then the monitoring officer at the parent authority would be notified and they decide whether to investigate and the council would have to abide by their decision. Not sure how it works for MPs but there must be something in place

Does that mean there is an "authority" "regulating group" or whatever it's called that a constituent could complain to?

To add to my earlier post, my councillor role is voluntary. I don't get a single penny for giving up my time and having to deal with some unpleasant situations.

If I can cope with helping those I personally dislike due to the way they act for free, then KO can bloody well cope with being paid lots of money to do the same.

ArabellaScott · 31/12/2023 21:39

sorry, I also meant to say, she is actively saying she refuses to listen to the views of gc women. That is discrimination, given her position, surely?

That's a very good point indeed. As another poster said earlier, when all sorts of arseholes and bigots come to her for help, in her position as a councillor, she has to try to do so, not tell them "Fuck off, you're banned from my office!"

She's a disgrace to democracy.

Women highlighting Child safeguarding and female safe spaces isn’t being Twatish!

Read Trans by Helen Joyce and the Tavistock report.

What the hell?

I wonder how much Teresa May's hate mail increased after Osborne posted that meme of her?
And she's got the cheek to do this to her tweets? How fucking dare she.

Who can reply?
Accounts @KateOsborneMP mentioned can reply

But I will make allowances for you and me and even for back bench MPs. I'm less inclined to do so for Anneliese Dodds given that she's the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities

Fair point.

I can't stand Dodds.

In other words the explanation could easily be that AD was/is unaware of the exceptions v exemptions and spaces v services point. Much like you and I were until this morning!!
Yes indeed! But I will make allowances for you and me and even for back bench MPs. I'm less inclined to do so for Anneliese Dodds given that she's the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities and might well end up as Secretary of State. I expect her to be on top of this stuff and it scares the crap out of me that she clearly isn't.

Thanks for spotting this and flagging it. And for the link to Michael Foran’s tweet.

Another language point is that Annelise Dodds referred to single sex spaces, whereas Section 27 refers to single-sex services.

It’s clear that there are lots of examples of where the S27 single-sex exception would apply automatically but those single sex services have been withdrawn from women and girls at the behest of Stonewall and other men’s sexual entitlement lobby groups. For example retailers providing single sex changing facilities or a bra fitting service. Single sex rape crisis services. Single sex domestic abuse refuges and support services. It’s clear that providing such single sex services would not breach sex discrimination law, thanks to S27. The question - it seems to me - is whether excluding male persons in possession of a GRC from female facilities would be sex discrimination; or whether excluding male persons in possession of a GRC from male facilities would be discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. KB said that the Haldane judgment has resulted in a lack of clarity on that point.

Having read the 6th December debate I’m open to believing that the explanation of Dodd’s mention of exemption not exception could be what KB said when she said she fears no one on the opposite bench because she knows that none of them have done any research and are just repeating social media catchphrases. (Not an exact quote.) It was clear that the Tories had all been briefed on the issues and provided with questions to ask. Whereas the Labour and SNP MPs had only been given rhetoric. In other words the explanation could easily be that AD was/is unaware of the exceptions v exemptions and spaces v services point. Much like you and I were until this morning!!

This link should take you to the post if you're on Twitter:
[[https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1741756136414396511

I have another question about Labour weasely wording. I imagine it's been raised already on other threads but I'm only just starting to grasp it and I doubt I'm the only one:

Towards the end of Michael Foran's Twitter thread (linked a couple of posts up by Theinnocenteyeballsinthesky) he talks about both single sex 'exceptions' and 'exemptions'. Sorry I can't screenshot the post (creaking old phone) but he says:

'The default is equal treatment unless you’re within the realm of an exception (which apply automatically if the facts meet the legal tests below; exemptions must be actively applied for). If you’re covered by an exception the default is that a single sex service is lawful.'

I'm not a lawyer but there's clearly a distinction between the two - you must apply for an exemption whereas an exception is automatic.

Anneliese Dodds, as far as I can see, only talks about protecting single sex 'exemptions' in both the Guardian and the HOC debate (both linked upthread). There was a time when I might have believed there was an innocent explanation but now I'm thinking, 'what's that about?'

welcome @Floisme its one of the clearest explanations I’ve seen about how single sex spaces absolutely do not have to be applied on a case by case basis

Thank you for that link. Like many people I'm sure, I struggle to get my head around this and that's a helpful and clear explanation.

She's a deeply silly, unprofessional MP playing to a gallery of misogynists for cheap social media clout.

Michael Foran has done one of his brilliant threads on the GRA, the EA and the impact or not of holding a GRC

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1741545323837763641?s=46&t=aWQLrPtVicDNf6MQpq5WVg

I suspect that this means that Labour will oppose moves to make sure that sex refers to biological sex; so that those with a GRC will still be able to access single sex spaces. Of course, Labour also means to make it far easier for people to acquire a GRC.

l do not think so. Stonewall (and therefore presumably Labour) have moved on from lobbying for sex=gender under the EA. Instead they argue that the 'proportionate and legitimate' test for permitting women-only spaces sets a very high bar which is rarely achievable and definitely doesn't include toilets and changing rooms (because they are ignoring indirect discrimination against religious minorities and DV survivors).

They are giving wrong advice to partners even so, because women-only spaces are still permitted if indirect discrimination against trans people is avoided. KB has made a start on this with proposed new building regs. that would mandate both single-sex and gender neutral facilities.

GRCs are irrelevant. The EA applies to anyone with the PC of gender reassignment whether they have one or not.