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.

LGBTQ2SAGP+ 😂

There are 5,500 plus comments under the Telegraph article and haven't spotted any celebrating men having access to undressing women and girls.

Some claim that it is hypocritical for a woman to nip into the gents when the alternative is wetting herself in the queue, if she then complains about men coming into the women's loos.

Her behaviour is, in fact, a consequence of a failure to provision enough toilets for women in the first place. Legislation should mandate more toilets for women, not allow men into the insufficient loos that we have.

Labour are being shysters and then wondering why their poll rating drops.

Read it again. Don't bother commenting again until you've understood it.

I don't think Bridget is actually that dim. She just pretends to be.

I remind people that it can be illuminating to Advanced Search posters with unfamiliar usernames prior to replying to them.

Reminds me of John Gielgud's exhortation to a young actor: 'Never pause in the West end!'

Absolutely disgraceful.

They're a bunch of hypocrites talking about tackling misogyny while destroying women's rights.

“Never pause in the West End. I paused many, many years ago, and during the silence, I heard a voice from the third row go, 'Oh, you hideous beast! You've just come all over my umbrella!'"

Protect the dolls umbrellas.

It’s quite clear given BPs comments around children educated in private schools that she is wholly driven by ideological bandwagons.

Labour is moving in a dangerous direction. In less than a month, we have had the following:

• cancellation of local elections, removing a central right of democracies
• removal of right to jury trial for some elections
• sentencing rights granted to magistrates with no right of appeal, removing the a right of citizens
• a definition of Islamaphobia agreed, restricting free speech
• arrest of a woman quietly praying on the perimeter of the exclusion zone around an abortion clinic, a restriction on the right to protest
• failing to respect a Supreme Court ruling on single sex spaces, undermining the rights of biological women

Is anyone in No. 10 looking at what the government is doing in the round, and seeing that the rights of citizens are being eroded while power transfers to the state?

Why do some women want to facilitate male exploitation and sex-motivated abuse of women? Seriously, why?

In this case, does Philippson hope ultimately to achieve some sort of financial advantage by making women into an all-you-can-perv smorgasbord for porn drunk men? (Some lucrative post-office appointment to a think tank, for instance?) Is that what drives her selling out other less privileged women?

If not, what does motivate this?

I really can’t believe she’s doing it it on principle (‘be kind’ 🤢) because let’s face it the only principle motivating anyone at all in Starmer’s coterie of grotesque corrupt freeloaders is the principle of self-enrichment. (A propos of which, ‘The Fraud’ by Paul Holden is a great read on the Starmer Projects’s lies and lawlessness. It’s from the left pov but should horrify anyone of whatever political hue who believes in the rule of law and representative democracy.)

Wings' take:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/contempt-of-government/

Removing right to jury trial for some cases, not elections! Apologies. Spotted too late to edit.

I think the thing is that we're in a tangible end-of-regime period, with a feckless governing class that's got no real interest in governing, only in managing the narrative. And it can't even manage the narrative, it's still living in an analogue world where Morgan McSweeney talks to Lewis Goodall and a story gets dropped in the Times or Newsnight and everyone believes it.

It isn't a dictatorship, but it's got a definite streak of comic opera authoritarianism. And the UK isn't unique in this, Germany has a government that can't solve its energy crisis but is hauling pensioners before the courts for dangerous anti-democratic crimes like tweeting the poo emoji at Green Party leaders.

So we've got the Supreme Court saying what the law is, the statutory regulator producing detailed guidance on how to apply the law, and the guidance is gathering dust and/or being gutted, simply because Bridget Phillipson fancies her chances as a leadership candidate when Labour finally get rid of Britpop Erich Honecker.

Is anyone in No. 10 looking at what the government is doing in the round, and seeing that the rights of citizens are being eroded while power transfers to the state?

Yes, and saying "everything is going to plan". This outcome is intentional.

She is a liar.

How do you conclude that everything is going according to plan when Labour's poll ratings are so dire? I think you are over-generous in believing that there is a plan.

I tried to post the video evidence of Bridget Phillipson lying to Parliament 7 months ago, but the link I tried did not seem to work

In it she says:

This government will continue as before. Working to protect single sex spaces based on biological sex, now with the added clarity of this ruling.

Lie #1
’as before’. No they certainly were not work ing to protect single sex spaces based on biological sex before.

Lie#2
’protect single sex spaces based on biological sex now with the added clarity of the ruling.’
No she is not protecting them. She has been working behind the scenes over the last seven months trying to block the ruling and it’s very clarity.

She is also responsible for removing the child safeguarding from trans activism in schools which the Conservatives had put in place in their draft guidance.

I wonder what sort of response the Mumsnet poll below this thread is getting. 😂

On balance, how do you feel about the labour government at the moment?
Very positive
Quite positive
Neutral
Quite negative
Very negative

Same in the Times .

If we look back to Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher we knew (broadly) what they stood for and what they wanted to achieve as Prime Minister. You might (very, very strongly) disagree, but their world view was clear.

What does Starmer stand for? What are his core values and uncrossable lines? Does he have any? Why did he want to be PM, is it just the ego trip of being in the top job?

Starmer is happy and confident when dealing with international issues. But the moment he looks inward to his own country he seems to deflate, wobble and lose all rationality and courage. It's bizarre.

His Spads should truth-bomb him:

• Stop being weak and ineffectual
• The PM is meant to lead, not be liked
• Free Speech and Rule of Law are core British values. Abandon them and the voters will abandon you
• Sack Phillipson. Do it now. Flashes of ruthlessness, as and when needed, is very beguiling. Make the backbenchers fear your wrath
• Promote Tonia Antoniazzi. She has the resilience to deliver VAWG policies including the new EHRC Code of Practice

These are the Christmas presents the British public really really wants. Make them happy!