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.

Helen Joyce now!

As appalling as this is, this isn't news though is it? We knew these were the arguments that the government's lawyers made at the time of the judicial review. Has been information come out?

The collapse of the economic order all around us has removed the primary differences between British political parties. Everything from social services to life expectancy is in decline, and instead of being honest with people about the profound economic and political crisis we are in, all our political leaders lie and obfuscate, and give us barely digested, simplistic ideas and slogans which have very little in common expect that they disadvantage women and girls. I’m depressingly certain that women’s rights will be rolled back still further whoever wins the next election.

Helen on magnificent form!

Absolutely. When people say they need to vote left what is it they’re voting for bar these kinds of social anti women policies

If this was a man coming out with this nonsense we'd be suggesting his hard drive was looked at.

To be honest I'm starting to wonder at the motivation of this awful woman. She wants to shove the transgender agenda into schools and now this.

0345 6060973
Tell them what you think

When a member of the bloody cabinet cannot be buggered to actually read or understand the material personally, or even to take advice with some thought of impartial sources and due diligence on checking what they say -

seriously, we might as well have chatgp in parliament and running the country. We'd do better with someone drafted from their shift at bloody Tesco. They'd be far cheaper.

She is looking as much of a muppet as Judge Kemp, but worryingly no one seems to care and there seriously seems to be no accountability left. These are incompetencies that would get the average working person sacked.

I think for those of us who aren't insanely ambitious, it's really hard to get inside the mind of someone like this. Presumably you go into politics at least partly because you want to change things for the better - not just for self-advancement - and therefore you should, surely, put up a fight against a policy that makes things worse for people.

So it's hard for those of us with a functioning moral compass to conceive of someone who thinks, essentially, "This is a terrible policy that will have a massively damaging effect on women's lives, particularly if they're poor or vulnerable, but I'm going to promote it because it means people in my own party are more likely to elect me leader."

I have no idea if that is her thought process. Perhaps she genuinely does believe it's all terribly complicated. Perhaps she genuinely believes that it's fine for men to go into women's changing rooms. Perhaps she genuinely believes that the government has the right to overrule the Supreme Court.

If she is doing this out of a cynical desire to be leader, she's not fit to be in government.

If she genuinely believes that women's rights don't matter, and that politicians can ride roughshod over the highest court in the land, she's not fit to be in government.

Im pleased the Sun is covering it now. It's all very well being in the Telegraph and Times, but the Sun has a huge readership of traditionally labour voters. And journalists are getting braver.

I've been surprised at how slow the media have been at picking this up - there are a huge amount of both broadsheet and tabloid stories in this - I'm not quite sure why, apart from some exceptions, the media have been so uninterested.

[Edit: correcting incoherence]

Here's Maya

Our politics and civil society generally have become populated by moral relativist technocrats with brass necks. For many in the upper echelons of society their truth-value changes with context, they feel no loyalty to an objectively correct or true way of doing things because they don't believe such a thing as objective truth exists.

Self interest and a wish for power is now seen as an acceptable reason to participate in public life rather than having a strong sense of wanting to serve society. For this type of politician or civil servant, the public exist to be managed rather than served. So, these politicians and bureaucrats feel no shame regarding their actions because they never feel accountable. And because they don't feel personally accountable to the demos, their instinct is to try to 'manage' their way out of situations when they make egregious mistakes.

They will lie to your face all day long because for them that's part of the game and, if you're not one of them, you're on the opposite team and.... all's fair in politics.

Can you tell I'm getting cynical in my old age? 😒

They don't apparently feel accountable to anything, including the highest law of the land.

I'm looking at society and ordinary people who live lives of ethics, value, honesty and standards and still expect that those that run them, tax them, tell them what to do and make the law have those same standards of decency. And they don't.

I am very, very over politicians. I don't honestly care at this point what coloured flag they're flapping.

I think she is doing it out of a cynical desire to kick the can down the road.

But by doing so she is completely undermining the big announcement about ending VAWG (now remember girls, men don't like it when you say no! It's your job to smile and be nice!) and handing talking points to Kemi Badenoch and Claire Coutinho.

Because he's a Fabian. And the Fabians are pro trans.

BP wrote this for the Fabian Society in October.

Quiet radicalism | Fabian Society https://share.google/ZAsB9K3B3YIqOF5Re

Note this

'This is how we beat Reform. They want to divide our country, while we want to find a common sense of purpose and solidarity among all of our people, regardless of background, gender, race, creed or class.'

(My bold)

Everything Labour are doing is coming from the Fabians. 'Quiet radicalism' indeed.

Just adding a comment even though I am only half way through catching up with today's posts on this thread. (will have to finish later)

This thread makes me think that somehow we need to maybe be as brash as the GLP and not be shy about coming forward.

Apart from writing to our MPs to say what message is the Labour Party sending about respect for the law, as well as implying that a court decision supporting women's rights is the one they choose to undermine.

But also (and I have stopped bothering) is sending emails or using comment sections to get the many points raised in the thread into the public domain.

Sadly even though some papers have stood of for women's sex based rights, I dont this they always convey the impact on women that many of the posts on this thread illustrate.

Although sadly part of me feels that even though many of the general public would find it odd that the Government thinks it doesn't have to obey a court ruling, that because this is about women's rights they wont get as hot under the collar if it was something to do with men.

Sorry in a rush so might not make sense.

Having voted Labour in the past, I had low expectations of them this time and I didnt vote for them. But even i didn't think they would play fast and loose with the Supreme Court.

I can't imagine any circumstances when my vote would return their way, certainly not while this cohort of Labour MPs are still hanging around. I just dont think I could ever trust them.

It may be time for some strategic JRs targeting specific government departments who have failed to ensure the SC judgement is being adhered to.

Meanwhile, Ash Regan is facing a 2-day Holyrood ban for calling out Maggie Chapman's comments against the Supreme Court ruling, in a tweet accusing the judges of "“bigotry, prejudice and hatred”....

Camilla Tominey asking for feedback on the Telegraph article:
Hi everyone. Thank you very much for reading and taking the time to comment. Why do you think Bridget Phillipson appears to be thwarting this process?

She was nominated in her constituency on an all women short list. I so so wish it had been in recent times and she’d lost to a male.

only then might she “get it”

I won’t just vote for someone as a protest - I’ll be making my feelings clear by writing “Respect my sex if you want my x” on the ballot sheet. If we do it in numbers they’ll have to listen. Apparently there were quite a few of these at a recent by-election. And the officers have to review all spoiled ballots closely….

I remember the tedious arguments about whether defaced ballot sheets are read, and by who...

but I did the same last election, and looking likely it will be the same next time too. At this rate, I may never cast a vote again!

1. Does anyone have a link to a recording of Helen Joyce on LBC earlier?
2. The claim that it's all so complicated makes me retch. It's not complicated. All men stay out of women's spaces. That includes short men, nice men, gay men, Jewish men, blind men, bald men, men who think they're artists despite never having sold a piece of art, and men who assert that they're women. All men. It's really not complicated at all.
3. I'm going to try to meet with my Labour MP in the New Year. I've had boilerplate responses to my emails. He's been entirely silent on the matter any time it's come up in the house so I've no idea what he actually knows and thinks. Those of us who have Labour MPs should now be demanding answers about why the government appears to be trying to find a workaround the SC judgement rather than seeing that it's implemented.

For the record - Front page of the printed Telegraph today…