Thread 42 Sunak : Ping Pong with the Enemies of the People

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5049813-thread-41-how-many-more-mps-will-sunak-lose?page=40&reply=134717150

Not at all. I think everyone should be allowed to speak out. I certainly wouldn’t engage in any sort of Thread policing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68874822

Christopher Cash, 29, the researcher, and Christopher Berry, 32, were charged under the Official Secrets Act.

They are accused of giving "articles, notes, documents or information" to a foreign state, the Met Police said.

I just saw that I wondered if they were linked to this from last year:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-67142161.amp

@Lion400 any comment on @Bigcoatlady 's detailed history including relevant points of legislation concerning the 2094 GRA, which contradicts your incessant Labour blaming?

Even if it is the result of the last Labour government's legislation the Cons have had 14 years to reverse that. Instead we have had the 2015 act and the stealth decriminalisation of sexual offences so I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's worth shouting from the rooftops as an anti Labour strategy.

Oh god it's like going to the pub and you let a stranger join in and then they turn out to be a complete melt and you wish you hadn't bothered letting them evening sit down

Actually I found your post of interest at first. Then it got offensive. If you’d like to provide the information without resorting to insults, I’ll read it properly.

I’m always ready to be educated if I get something wrong / or just don’t know something.

Even.

Damn you autocorrect

@DuncinToffee oh c'mon after the all nighter we've got the local elections and then it's straight into either NC vote or what exactly do you mean by second half of the year, followed up with the practicalities of Rwanda coming unstuck as the charter company and (alleged but its in the Express so lets be cautious) commercial flights realising this might hit their business in some other way and maybe this contract isn't worth it after all, so flights being booked and delayed, protests on the tarmac, then we're straight into the 50 emergency court rooms, appeals, Strasbourg injunctions getting ignored, writs for habeas corpus going to our SC, back to enemies of the people. And what I suspect will be a declaration of incompatibility at the SC - which to be fair to Suella Braverman (not easy) is the one thing she is probably right about in all this. The bill as written will never ever get past our SC and they have already told the govt that, but equally coming out of the ECHR wouldn't help either as they think the policy breaches international law so we'd have to somehow leave the planet. I still refuse to believe a flight will ever leave so by July they'll look just as stupid as they do now. And that's just their carcrash of an immigration policy.

The insults keep coming! Really is a clear picture now.

🤫🤐

I’d replied above . Still no surprises.

Please can we just park that issue now. If people want to discuss it further, start a new thread.

Yeah, not holding my breath. Too many inconvenient facts in that post for the single issue brigade.

But you haven't addressed any of the points made or details provided...

@pointythings There are a lot of threads on FWR about Labour's position that you could ask that on, should you want to.
I'm happy to make one about the effective decriminalisation of rape if posters want to continue the discussion there? Then this thread can be for current political affairs.

I'm not sure we can. We have always asked people to present evidence on these threads. That's a valuable quality, and it isn't OK for anyone to trample all over that.

Also, let's be courteous to posters even if they are annoying us. Remember there are lurkers who won't hesitate to report in the hopes of getting the thread pulled.

I’ve saved it. It’s one of the most factual and lucid posts on the subject ever.

How strange a reply. Did you see my response?

sorry @IClaudine I am going to have one last go but I promise I will stop then.

@Lion400 I wrote:
The Gender Recognition Act 2004 only allows people to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate if they have two written reports by medical professionals confirming that they have lived in their affirmed gender for two years as well as evidence of any medical treatment they have undergone. There is no requirement for a GRC to be issued that the applicant has undergone surgery, the reason for this is the original bill introduced by Labour restricted GRCs only to those who had received surgery and this was removed in the Lords by Tory peers uncomfortable with the requirement that 'men' undergo surgical removal of the penis.

That much is ancient history. Less than 5000 people in the UK have a GRC.

In 2015 the Home Office launched a proposal to remove the costly and time-consuming medical assessment of applications for gender recognition in favour of self-ID. This was a Tory proposal from a Tory government. They have since reversed their position on it but it was never a Labour proposal.

The Equality Act 2010 has always made it possible to exclude trans women from women only competitive sports (s.195), women only services (sch 3), all women shortlists(s104(7)), communal accommodation (sch23), women only associations (sch16) and job requirements (sch 9).

As a result employers who want to recruit a woman but not a transwoman to a role such as 'rape crisis counsellor' have always been able to do so. If a rape crisis service wanted to offer rape crisis group therapy ONLY to women and not trans women they are entirely permitted to do so. If a domestic violence refuge (and I have chaired the board of trustees of a housing charity which offers refuge services for many years) wants to only accommodate women and not trans women it can do so.

You said that your examples of a woman in Brighton who could not access group therapy without a transwoman being present and the hiring of a transwoman as CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis were consequences of Labour legislation.

This is wrong isn't it? Please could you correct that.

It really is, I'm going to save it too.

Agreed there are plenty on FWR. I don't give a damn either way on particular posters but this is Chat. Mostly irritable lefties it would seem. I'm sure an irritable righty chat can be set up to meet that need if it's not.

I did. You say you read the first part and then got offended. You did not address or refute, with evidence, any of the points made. Why not?

big if I make a thread with this in, in chat, is that OK with you? Really happy to debate, and your perspective is epic bit we run the risk of derailing this thread.