Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

heroinechic · 22/04/2025 23:16

We’ll likely never know what Kier Starmer genuinely “believes”. All this gleeful “embarrassing U-turn” stuff is weird. The Supreme Court has made a judgment and he would be daft to do anything other than defer to their judgment on the matter.

It’s overly simplistic to say that he’s a “shit barrister” (he wasn’t) or that he’s a “bit thick” (unlikely). If there wasn’t a legal question to answer the case wouldn’t have found itself in front of the Supreme Court. It’s not novel for the courts to deal with competing rights, they do it all the time. Now we have a clarified legal position we can move forward on that basis, whatever people “believe” personally.

ThisIsItNowOrNever · 22/04/2025 23:38

If you have a vagina you are a woman.

MrsSkylerWhite · 22/04/2025 23:40

And?

Keirawr · 22/04/2025 23:55

He is a bare faced liar. And a total hypocrite. He is literally on record as having said that women have male genitalia.

Aside from being a liar and a hypocrite, he’s also a moron. An anyone without basic grasp of biological facts would be.

To think that this guy is running the country. The country is doomed.

Never forget how this man treated Rose Duffield. How he insisted that women have male genitalia. How he basically laughed in women’s faces by re enforcing this nonsense. Never forget.

Keirawr · 22/04/2025 23:56

Why is Starmer always on the wrong side of history? Jimmy Savile, BLM and knee taking, fighting for terror suspects for stay in the country, saying women have penises.

This guy either has terrible judgement or is a complete moron.

Jumpingthruhoops · 23/04/2025 02:18

Millyjanice · 22/04/2025 22:16

Interesting that there had to be court ruling to define “ Woman”!
What about the definition for “Man”? What about “ trans” men … women who identify as men ?
Would they have been allowed to invade male only spaces ?

I’m glad that a common sense decision has been reached and there is no further need for Emperors new Clothes ! I think everyone, politicians included, was treading on eggshells around this subject.

I very much doubt transmen want to invade male-only spaces. Which kinda tells us all we need to know...

PsychoHotSauce · 23/04/2025 07:31

heroinechic · 22/04/2025 23:16

We’ll likely never know what Kier Starmer genuinely “believes”. All this gleeful “embarrassing U-turn” stuff is weird. The Supreme Court has made a judgment and he would be daft to do anything other than defer to their judgment on the matter.

It’s overly simplistic to say that he’s a “shit barrister” (he wasn’t) or that he’s a “bit thick” (unlikely). If there wasn’t a legal question to answer the case wouldn’t have found itself in front of the Supreme Court. It’s not novel for the courts to deal with competing rights, they do it all the time. Now we have a clarified legal position we can move forward on that basis, whatever people “believe” personally.

Just to clarify, I don't actually think he's thick or a shit barrister. I think he's a slimy politician who will flip flop for a sound bite depending on which direction the wind is blowing at the time.

His barrister training would (should) have meant he understood that his duty to the court, and the law, came before everything. That's drilled into them as the first Core Duty. My point was more that he abandoned those principles in the name of politics.

The law hasn't changed, and I have no doubt that he understood it perfectly well before the ruling. So it is 'either' he's a shit barrister who is a bit thick, or an inconsistent (typical) politician. The two professions don't work well together in situations like this. If you hire a barrister you kind of expect him to understand the law and apply it consistently, that trust is why we pay them so much. Throw in the entirely different dynamics of politics and the weak-willed will crumble - as he did - so the words that come out of his mouth (women can have penises) are a lie, in the name of PR and votes. The law be damned eh.

mummytoonetryingfortwo · 23/04/2025 08:15

PsychoHotSauce · 23/04/2025 07:31

Just to clarify, I don't actually think he's thick or a shit barrister. I think he's a slimy politician who will flip flop for a sound bite depending on which direction the wind is blowing at the time.

His barrister training would (should) have meant he understood that his duty to the court, and the law, came before everything. That's drilled into them as the first Core Duty. My point was more that he abandoned those principles in the name of politics.

The law hasn't changed, and I have no doubt that he understood it perfectly well before the ruling. So it is 'either' he's a shit barrister who is a bit thick, or an inconsistent (typical) politician. The two professions don't work well together in situations like this. If you hire a barrister you kind of expect him to understand the law and apply it consistently, that trust is why we pay them so much. Throw in the entirely different dynamics of politics and the weak-willed will crumble - as he did - so the words that come out of his mouth (women can have penises) are a lie, in the name of PR and votes. The law be damned eh.

This type of clarification happens all the time. It means that interpretations change (happened in the Miller cases during Brexit), and the only reason it gets to the Supreme Court is because of this type of thing. It doesn’t mean he was misleading the court or anything else.

PsychoHotSauce · 23/04/2025 08:50

mummytoonetryingfortwo · 23/04/2025 08:15

This type of clarification happens all the time. It means that interpretations change (happened in the Miller cases during Brexit), and the only reason it gets to the Supreme Court is because of this type of thing. It doesn’t mean he was misleading the court or anything else.

I never said he was misleading the court.

mummytoonetryingfortwo · 23/04/2025 08:59

PsychoHotSauce · 23/04/2025 08:50

I never said he was misleading the court.

You mentioned his duty to the court. At the end of the day, his personal beliefs are immaterial. So long as he ensures his party upholds the judgment it doesn’t matter what he thinks.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread