Brigitte Phillipson blocking EHRC guidance

[lcakethereforeIam]

I'm not sure if there's anything new here though

Phillipson blocks trans guidance after landmark Supreme Court ruling https://share.google/P91PBE5Cy4ROwsdA1

It's a very stark article in the Telegraph.

Other political fantasies are available.

So we can totally believe Jenrick the self-serving liar, and Farage is going to reveal an actual strategy that isn't just him getting his gurning mug in the papers, backed up by administrative competence and enough political talent to make it all happen?

Science must be about to unleash jetpacks for commuting and tiny cloned pet dinosaurs, too! Amazing!

The link to the petition on AIBU doesn’t seems to have got much traction?
Does it need a separate thread here?

Like Starmer's "Britain's citizens first, party second"? fantasy he touted in 2024?
What do you think his political fantasy to sell will be in 2029?
That he believes in the rule of law, but there wasn't anytime in 2025-29 to enact the SC ruling? Rule of law can always be put aside when party politics demands?

I certainly look forwards to it, share a lot of your skepticism.
Maybe the Tories will promise to do the things they always said they would and never did.
Maybe Ed Davey will promise to visit every Center Parcs on the campaign trail.
Maybe Polanski will get billionaires to fund everything and tax cuts for the little people.
Maybe Corbyn Sultana will promise a rival to the Board Of Peace, and promise 50% of all WI boards are transwomen.

Do I trust Jenrick? Not entirely, but I'm paying attention to what he says.

Jenrick, for what it's worth, is the MP most heavily influenced by David Starkey's critique of the Blairite constitutional settlement, and the need to rewire the state to unpick that settlement.

Do I agree with Starkey? Again, not entirely. But I don't put the post-1997 constitutional changes on a pedestal and say they can't be touched.

Some of those changes have been good. Some, not so good. The Blairite legalist-globalist-quangocrat state has been a bit of a mixed bag, it would be fair to say. We can indeed point to the ability to invoke Convention rights in court under the ECHR, which has been vital in some cases we care about.

But there are other elements, a lot of them linked to the Blairite settlement expanding and changing the composition of the governing class. I'm not sure it serves the common good for Keir Starmer to have a pension so enormous that it's got its own special piece of legislation to protect its value.

And even in terms of the HRA, I'm not sure it serves us to sign up to not only Convention rights as might be interpreted by UK courts but also the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court because the ECtHR has taken a very expansive view of its mandate and may very well rule in ways we don't like.

So my basic view of all this is prudential. And I'm quite immune to appeals to political tribalism.

Some of us think: 'That's the slime-ball who didn't pay his taxes' when we think of Zahawi (although I do my best not yo think of Zahawi).

You may have a point there. Doesn't mean I'd trust Jenrick to tell me what day it was, or Farage's collection of lamebrains and loopers to organise anything but a circular firing squad.

I think of when he claimed the costs of heating his stables on expenses.

As I repeatedly say, I'm not a member of Reform and am quite happy to slam them when necessary.

If you're going to tell me that left wing politicos are ex officio good for women, there we will have to disagree. I have seen too many of them up close to believe that.

I don't think Zahawi and Jenrick are the asets reform need to look like a decent set up. Zahawi suddenly decided not to run for leadership of the Conservative Party when it looked like something would be revealed if he did . I'm still not sure what that was all about, maybe someone on here knows.

To be fair, it wasn't you I was quoting so I didn't say you were anything. But in any case I know (recognise your name from other political threads) that you're not a member of Reform; I enjoy your insights into Left machinations.

And of course the Left are awful for women, who could deny that? But it's not a zero sum game where saying one is bad means you support the other.

I'm very much in the 'all terrible in their different ways, fuck the lot of you None Of The Above' despairing rage camp.

What implications does the shenanigans in the Labour Party have for the guidance? With Starmer facing potential a leadership challenge, will this be an excuse/distraction for BP to bury the code of practice for even longer?

I doubt it will make it out of the long grass this year. Leaving it in the 'waiting dont want to do it too difficult' tray achieves what Labour actually want, which is dicks in the faces of non consenting women, and women and gay rights subordinated to the (non existant) 'right' of trans identified men to make use of them for personal jollies.

Without having to take responsibility for it, or honestly own their actual position. Which is Labour all over.

Starmer's "rule of law" administration becomes one of those typical Selwyn Frogitt style 70s union meetings where there are dozens of motions, just one for women's rights, and the brothers all decide very democratically to put it last of all.
And in the meantime, the sisters can go and make the tea.

Does anyone want another thread to continue discussing this and in case there are any new developments? I'm going out in a wee while. If anyone else wants to start one I'll be totally fine. Please though spell her name correctly

I'm willing to believe that any politician can change their mind and if they cant get their party to change course, move.

I can see Jenricks road to Damascus regarding immigration, he's tried to change policies, had a good chance of staying in the shadow cabinet, so his defection seems genuine. On both sides.

I think Zahawi is very capable and intelligent, more than Jenrick. But he is on a very different page about immigration, and didnt leave the tories because of principle on his part. His appointment seems more cynical on both sides. its more about money and a chance to get in power.

I don't know, its as if Reform know that the public want change, talk about it a lot, but with every appointment are getting closer to the Tories as they were?

I suppose its a bit like parts the Labour party thinking we will get the change needed by moving Burnham.

I see that Badenoch is currently doing a purge of everyone she can directly associate with Jenrick and his defection.
Bad bad move from her.
It demonstrates obsession and political naivity.
You can only do purges from a position of power. She has none.
What happens when the Cleverly wing work against her after May?
She can't purge them too, they'll be noone left, lol.
It also shows her weakness as a modem politician, relying on the optics of things rather than expressing an inherently understandable program.
She feels she needs to keep telling us the party is under new management, she's an engineer, she has to act to sack Jenrick, the party knows she's in charge.
Thatcher didn't have to say things in this manner, her actions spoke louder than words. Ditto Blair.
I call them Show Don't Tell.
Badenoch, and frankly Starmer as well, are Tell Don't Show.

The media landcape has changed considerably since the days of Thatcher and Blair. Now everyone has to be seen to be doing and saying things.

I just wish Badenoch would stop telling us how tough/decisive/a break from the past etc she is. By saying it over and over again, it feels like serious overcompensating.
Wasn't Starmer guilty of the same sin, and now we see how empty his self aggrandizement was?

This thread has taken a bizarre turn. To bring it back to the point, in the conversation with Justine, Jenrick thought a transwomen was a woman who wanted to be a man. Justine had to correct him. Where’s the evidence he has been interested enough even to understand the terminology.

Jenrick and Choped signed off on about 20 million for one another's constituencies, which was earmarked for the 100 most deprived boroughs in the country. None of theirs were remotely near that group.

Apparently, though wrong, it wasn't illegal. I don’t want him anywhere near any money.

Katherine "One Size Fits All" Birbalsingh lost a racial discrimination case, brought by a Black girl. She bordered her to shave her hair off, then put her in isolation.

Later, she was showing potential investors round and bragged, "Don't worry, we've got rid of that troublesome girl." They went out of their way, after losing, to make her life miserable, so that she'd leave.

As for Sugar, he got lucky with an electronic message board and touts himself as an user mogul. He doesn't brag about his voice to text landlines service, aimed at older people.

Once sent, the software didn't disengage and people got bills for thousands of Pounds. He got his cut from BT and never paid a penny back. Another wide boy I wouldn't want within a country mile of the levers of power.

Wow, that’s an eye opener comment 👆

Any chance of a link to that Birbalsingh story. I heard she won a court case brought by a Muslim student.

Continuation thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5481238-bridget-phillipson-blocking-ehrc-guidance-thread-2