Starmer is asked about toilets AGAIN

Yes, exactly.

He clearly hasn't looked up the act on his own or checked what it actually says and is merely being fed lines by others who haven't read it either.

As a lawyer, when I look up a statute to discuss it's application to the situation at hand, one of the first things I make sure I do is get the name of the legislation right so I don't look silly when I'm trying to gain the upper hand in a negotiation or present myself as a trusted advisor on the law.

It really does beggar belief that after all this public discussion around single sex spaces and protection of women and girls, Starmer hasn't even bothered to go back to the Equality Act itself as the source of the legal protections to check what it actually says about these issues.

This is especially surprising since Starmer's position is that the EA is absolutely fine and very robust as it currently stands - if that is the case (and I can see how this could be plausibly argued by him if the exemptions were better understood and upheld), then why would he not read the legislation then make a coherent argument for based on the law that he says is already fit for purpose?

The fact that Starmer as a lawyer can't even correctly name, let alone explain, the legislation that supposedly adequately safeguards women's single-sex spaces completely undermines his claim that the current EA is fit for purpose.

Many thanks to @Chersfrozenface

I'm putting some extracts from the document here. Bold is mine.

Whatever our personal views, we should frankly recognize that these proposals were put before the country at the recent General Election and that the people of this country, with full knowledge of these proposals, returned the Labour Party to power. The Government may, therefore, I think, fairly claim that they have a mandate to introduce these proposals. I believe that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has so recently expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals which have been definitely put before the electorate. (HL Hansard, 16th August 1945, vol. 137, col. 47)

Because of the large Labour majority in the Commons in 1945, it was therefore possible for us who belonged to the opposition to make it our broad guiding rule that what had been on the Labour Party programme at the preceding General Election should be regarded as having been approved by the British people. Therefore ... we passed all the nationalisation Bills, although we cordially disliked them, on the second reading and did our best to improve them and make them more workable at committee stage. Where, however, measures were introduced which had not been in the Labour Party Manifesto at the preceding Election, we reserved full liberty of action. (HL Hansard, 4th November 1964, vol. 261, col. 66)

Cranborne reckoned that it was not the duty of the House of Lords to make our system of government inoperable. Nor, he considered, was it justified that the Opposition peers should use their voting strength to wreck any measure which the Government had made plain at a General Election that they proposed to introduce ... [this] meant that the Lords should, if they saw fit, amend, but should not destroy or alter beyond recognition, any Bill on which the country had, by implication, given its verdict. The Lords, in other words, should not frustrate the will of the people. I doubt if this amounted to a formal constitutional doctrine but as a way of behaving it seemed to be very sensible ... Cranborne had to allow some robust words and tactics, but still retain sufficient control to prevent the passing by the Opposition of ‘wrecking’ amendments – as opposed to those which could perhaps draw a good deal of the poison from a Bill without seeming to destroy it utterly. There was, of course, argument about what constituted a wrecking amendment and what did not: but, by and large, the Salisbury strategy worked and the Salisbury convention – of no wrecking amendments – was observed. To this day the convention continues ... Later in life I applied the same convention myself. (Lord Carrington, Reflect on Things Past: The Memoirs of Lord Carrington (1988), pp. 77–78)

The definition of the Salisbury Doctrine:
The Salisbury Doctrine, or "Convention" as it is sometimes called, emerged from the working arrangements reached during the Labour Government of 1945-51, when the fifth Marquess of Salisbury was the Leader of the Conservative Opposition in the Lords. The Convention ensures that major Government Bills can get through the Lords when the Government of the day has no majority in the Lords. In practice, it means that the Lords does not try to vote down at second or third reading, a Government Bill mentioned in an election manifesto.

So it seems to me the question is, does the Labour Party's performance so far meet the requirement 'that the people of this country' have 'full knowledge of these proposals'? I'd say no, we don't have full knowledge of what the Labour Party proposes to do, so it doesn't meet the requirement..

Notice he calls it the Equalities Act, not the Equality Act.

Its a small detail, but I'd have thought he'd know the correct name of an act he supports so much. Lots of activist call it the Equalities act, so i wonder if hes picked it up from them.

It’s just hard to imagine that the leader of a party, who is so in thrall to an ideology that pretends men are women, that he can’t even make a statement of biological fact about women, is going to be the person who gets us out of our current shitstorm.

It just makes me wonder what some women do in the toilets? I go into a sealed unit (as in close the door) have my wee or poo, wipe myself, pull up my underwear and exit the door. I then wash my hands, perhaps 're apply my make up, go back out of the toilet.

when I was much younger and frequented clubs, it was not that off for me to enter the mens toilet, shout out that a woman was going in, avert my eyes as I entered, and use the first available cubical. It was quite normal around that time. I didn't feel like I was invading their space, it was a practical solution to the fact that women need to to pee sat down and ,because they are private.

You see a lot of us would have no issue with this. Me included. I do understand that some do have an issue so if that issue is more important than getting out of this shitstorm the government have created where people cant feed their children then vote accordingly.

It just makes me wonder what some women do in the toilets? I go into a sealed unit (as in close the door) have my wee or poo, wipe myself, pull up my underwear and exit the door. I then wash my hands, perhaps 're apply my make up, go back out of the toilet.

when I was much younger and frequented clubs, it was not that off for me to enter the mens toilet, shout out that a woman was going in, avert my eyes as I entered, and use the first available cubical. It was quite normal around that time. I didn't feel like I was invading their space, it was a practical solution to the fact that women need to to pee sat down and ,because they are private.

You see a lot of us would have no issue with this. Me included. I do understand that some do have an issue so if that issue is more important than getting out of this shitstorm the government have created where people cant feed their children then vote accordingly.

If toilets are not such a big deal why can't trans identified males use the men's?

Also, I wish journalists would stop asking politicians about whether or not men with intact genitals would be allowed into women's spaces - it just allows Starmer & Co an exception to allow men without intact genitals to have access to women's spaces.

I don't want ANY men irrespective of the surgery they've had in women's spaces or using women's services.

You see a lot of us would have no issue with this. Me included. I do understand that some do have an issue so if that issue is more important than getting out of this shitstorm the government have created where people cant feed their children then vote accordingly.

You can also see this happening in Europe, where gender ideology and identity politics, amongst other factors, have contributed to the rise in voting.for right wing parties in the recent European Parliament elections.

Totally agree with this. I think Labour will be shooting themselves in the foot with insisting on going ahead with GRA reform, conversion therapy bans, hate speech laws and generally ignoring the obvious harms of trans activism in schools and in medical settings.

I don’t this any of this will prevent them being elected with a large majority but that won’t mean that these policies are popular with the voters and it may hasten Labour’s demise if they continue to stick their fingers when people raise concerns. You only have to look at Scotland to see how unpopular these policies are and how much damage they can do to the reputation of a party. This is frustrating because we are going to need more than 5 years of a Labour government to help sort out the problems facing the UK.

It has always been fairly clear to me that this is a 20 year campaign/project. You cannot over-turn something in a few years that has become embedded in the way trans ideology has. It took years of working behind the scenes for the activists to get it embedded in the first place.

The awful irony is that just as the gender project is starting to naturally fall apart and be exposed for what it is......along comes Labour to re-embed it. Labour's timing is terrible. They are now actively pusihing against the tide ( which makes it even more unforgiveable) and in doing so are creating a noose for their own neck.........and for the inevitabe women and girls who will become victims of their short-sighted intransigence and subservience to lobby groups.