Thread 25 Starmer - Cheers for a falling out among thieves

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5338688-thread-24-starmer-casting-the-net-wider?

I wonder if they have any members left who would leave over this ?

There can't really be many decent people still in the Tory party.

I’m married to one unfortunately. He keeps saying it’s going to get better.

I know. 😂

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/08/kemi-badenoch-women-burqas-constituency-surgery

I see the sainted Kemi is refusing to talk to women in her surgeries if they choose to wear a burqa.

Be interested in a lawyers view about how that relates to the Equality Act ?

"My view is that people should be allowed to wear whatever they want, not what their husband is asking them to wear or what their community says that they should wear"

But by saying she won't speak to women wearing burqas, she is telling them what they can and can't wear.

She is stupid and xenophobic.

Indeed.

I've never seen anyone wearing a burqa in this country. Abaya and niqab, yes but never a burqa. So banning them would make fuck all difference.

I have, but I suspect she means the niqab.

And she has no respect for women, despite the slobbering and fawning we saw on FWR.

Of course the surgery is being held in a building with it's own rules and regulations, and St. Kemi and her team have made 100% they are acting in accordance with them ?

I mean it's not for me to point out fucking obvious facts, but since no one else is doing it these days, you can have that one on me.

You know what I think ? Team Badenoch haven't done such a basic check (remember these are the clowns who want to run a country), and there is now going to be prolonged battle against wokery as they are forced to comply with the terms of use of the building or find somewhere else willing to risk the lawsuit.

Just for completeness, we will get a statement from St. Kemi that will say she is above the law somehow. Probably by telling us what she thinks. Again.

Oh Kemi, mate.

Even if a woman is being coerced into covering her face, rather than doing it of her own free will, that shouldn't mean that she should denied the opportunity to seek the support of her MP with a matter.

We all know what Kemi thinks of equality laws but she doesn't get to ignore them.

This isn't about being a member of a political party. This is about the right to petition.

You know, that's mentioned in the Magna Carta.

I don't think I was supposed to know that - don't worry, I'll report myself.

We all know what Kemi thinks of equality laws but she doesn't get to ignore them

I will be disappointed if we don't get a mealy mouthed statement about how unfair it is that St. Kemi has to follow a woke law.

Tactically, I suspect this little stunt is doomed to fail.

However, strategically it is just another piece of kindling that the Tories will place under the concept of human rights, urging their supporters to fan the flames.

Sometimes your posts go right over my head Jane, sorry.

But it is clear that an MP's surgery is provding a public service so needs to comply with equality law.

She's just trying to outReform Reform.
I remember the stink in the press when Jack Straw said he found it difficult to talk with people wearing face coverings, but that was because he was deaf and relied on lipreading. There doesn't seem to be much outrage about Badenoch and her nasty little stunt.

You could argue (and I would be upset if a lawyer somewhere didn't) that being able to visit, meet, bring you problems to your MP in person is a reflection of what I believe is a universally accepted right in a free society - the right to petition the state.

Going back to the Magna Carta that Kemi has on her desk, like some have the Bible (you know how right wing loons love to bang on about it) then one of the rights it explicitly defines is the right of the subject (as we all are) to bring their grievances to the Monarch (in those days King John).

So by placing an arbitrary bar on the ability of her constituents (I bet she thinks of them as subjects) it looks like St. Kemi is denying them the right to petition.

Which is about as unEnglish as you can get. If you think about it. But as is clear no one on team Kemi did.

I wonder if ChatGPT came up with this wheeze ? It is certainly the level of stupidity I've seem so far.

Speaking of which:

The right to petition, rooted in the Magna Carta of 1215, established the principle that subjects could appeal to the sovereign for redress of grievances. While the Magna Carta itself did not use the term "petition," it laid foundational concepts of accountability and lawful governance. Clause 61 notably allowed a council of barons to hold the king accountable, a precursor to formal mechanisms of petitioning. Over centuries, this evolved into a recognized right in English law, enshrined more explicitly in later documents like the Bill of Rights 1689. It remains a key democratic tool in the UK and beyond.

Personally, I wouldn't and don't like to communicate in person without being able to see the whole face. Whether it's a surgical mask,. balaclava, protective apparel or simple garment regardless of significance.

But unless and until it affects me (so not that often) I really couldn't care less. Crack on.

However, if I struggle to believe what you are saying because I can't see your face. then you also have to accept that as a consequence of your decision.

What you don't get to do is decide what you want to wear, as well as how I react to it. You do you. I do me.

It's nuanced and hard to define in absolutes. But I won't tell you what to wear, and you won't tell me what to think seems to sum it up ?

Who says the Tories have run out of ideas.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/burka-ban-tory-mp-could-face-legal-action-2035168.html

The thing is, even if they banned all face coverings another than medical face masks, extra large face masks that performed the same function as a niqab would be available on Amazon and eBay before the signature ink was dry.

Well quite.

What we are seeing is the squirming and writhing as the right wing desperately try and look for a proxy for "brown" so that they can continue the despicable racism and inhumanity they were forced to abandon over the 60s and 70s.

When I worked in insurance and the gender ruling came in, I was privy to a flurry of discussions about trying to find other ways to deduce sex* from the underwriting questions.

*even though it was "the gender ruling" 🤔

I had no idea they were so keen on recycling.

That was pulled before it had contact with the law. I wonder if this idea will suffer a similar fate ?

Since we know ToryHQ are keen MN followers, I wonder if there is a bit of an arse kicking going on at CCHQ about whose job it was to check for things like that ?