The newspapers today

[Sausagenbacon]

Janice Turner has written a great piece in the Times
https://www.thetimes.com/article/dbc9adf5-7e8b-46c6-8c99-637a89ee67a0?shareToken=0e32bc27c7a0311cff873a8e0a201483
Gaby Hinsliff - surprise- being determindely thick in The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/18/if-britain-is-now-resetting-the-clock-on-trans-rights-where-will-that-leave-us

I would like to read those Times articles, but the share tokens don't work. Could someone post archive links?

Janice Turner? Upthread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5317912-the-newspapers-today?reply=143654858&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

@Igneococcus currently I am listening to BBC R4 programme about why Father Ted was so good. I think Graham Linehan's name has been mentioned once! They are talking about how the programmes used problems with the church, apparently unaware of problems with the BBC. (Must crawl kn: 10 guests for lunch...) Happy Easter, everyone.

That sucks. They are such cowards. I hope GL new comedy will be good and great success.
My MIL who is a practising Catholic loves Father Ted and my 17 year old and his friends love The IT Crowd. I don't think the BBC understands how much love there is for GL and his work.

People forget how quickly the world changes. How can anyone seriously think that a majority of MPs and Lords in 2010 understood "woman" to mean anything other than its normal sense? (And it is of course Parliament's interpretation that matters here, not civil servants: though I suspect even the latter were mostly not TWAW types 15 years ago.)

That headline has very much been in my mind the last few days.

It's ridiculous.

Too many people don't understand how law and democracy works in this country. Including politicians which is particularly worrying.

Remember there are still serving members of the house of commons and house of lords who voted through the law in the first fucking place.

My God, I'm all about the golden bridge and shifting to support gender nonconforming people of both sexes but those comments by Melanie Field are infuriating. Pregnancy is an anomaly? Making practical provision for female people is 'emphasising womanhood' in some kind of illegitimate way? 'Oh dear, I did such a shit job of ideological overreach that those annoyingly sticky female types got legal protection despite my best efforts' - really? No wonder this shit happened. To put that up on your Linked In as a promotion of your professional competence is a brave choice.

My Sunday morning reading is excellent this week, thanks for all the links

I would like to see exposes on all the dodgy "charities" that have groomed children and brainwashed the gullible, starting with Stonewall. Ruth Hunt should be out of the HOL and all government funding removed. The whole lot should be shut down, especially the ones going into schools to tell children they can change sex.

You mean the Department of Education, right?

Not charities.

The DoE could easily have stopped all these third party fuckwits coming into schools with genderbreadmen (yes men, it's a men's rights movement).

Edit the URL to add a full stop after the .co.uk and before the slash

.co.uk./

Yes I should have said charities and 3rd party organisations. I was thinking about a group called No Outsiders and lobby groups who are not actually charities. Is Stonewall a charity? I thought it was but could be wrong.

I thought the piece by Gaby was OK.

If this had been the line taken from the start life would be very different now.

Just saw a great headline by Sonia Sodha in the Guardian.

It feels like the Independent are the most fiercely anti women rn

Why are they so bad?

Owned by a Russian?

Why does no one ever notice that when they are busy going on about 'the far right'.

A decent article by Gaby Hinscliff. Based on my Facebook/bluesky feed, she is being quite brave to write that much.

The Indie are trying to sell to a young working market is all, like Metro. We know there's is a generational difference in views on this. Even youngsters like my ds who is studious in avoiding expressing views on anything this issue, is likely to feel more comfortable reading news that looks like the Indy story. Problem is that I don't think he reads a paper at all - possible the BBC website.

Incredible woman on Times Radio atm, didn’t catch her name. Times interviewer being annoying with ‘both sides’ re male aggression.

That really needs to end.

I have to say I doubt what Melanie Field is saying. I think it unlikely that the policy instructions specially addressed the issue of whether males with a GRC were to be considered female for the purposes of the EA. And I say that as an official who has been a lead on a Bill team.

The lawyers would have pointed out the difficulties with that as the Supreme Court sets out as would parly counsel. Plus as the Bill lead when you get the drafting back, you scrutinise it and if you think it doesn’t give effect to the extent of your instructions then you send it back with that query.

perhaps an FOI for those policy instructions might be illuminating? But I also think she’s overstepped. As a civil servant you don’t make public statements as your role is to implement the will of Ministers - not give commentary on your own views which frankly are and should remain irrelevant.

That Graham Linehan piece is very satisfying. I know he divided women sometimes, being inexplicably supportive of Debbie Hayton for instance.

So it's slightly ironic that the piece has captured the really spectacularly sexist lengths that some people were prepared to go to in defence of misogynistic men, but it does. Convincingly.

Nobody gets it right all the time. Graham has been exceptionally brave and his bitterness towards many of his former friends and collaborators is very understandable. I hope he can get his life back on track now and produce some more timeless classics.

Many thanks to all for these links. Very satisfying reading. I have listened to Broadcasting House and The World This Weekend on Radio 4 today and neither has mentioned one word about the Supreme Court ruling or its consequences. Why not?