Really significant, I think, that the leaders of the Greens and Lib Dems were very visible at Transmission, very happy to publicly demonstrate a commitment to the dignity of trans people. But the Labour frontbench, which still likes to cosplay respect for human rights, was nowhere to be seen.
'Evil witch poisons a good man' trope puts in an appearance.
And yes it is in the newspaper that described the rapist Donald Trump as a "feminist champion" and a "feminist hero".
😘
I can't believe how many photographs there are of Peter Mandelson in a bathrobe. He's like a depressed 80s mum.
I say, "if this is right" because it's in The Times which then goes into bat (in a characteristically misleading way) for their boy Wesley. They give him a clean bill of health despite him also not disclosing his private emails or (afaik) confirming he had no other private channels with Mandelson.
You don't use your personal communication channels for the boring stuff and your official for the incriminating, do you?
If this 👇🏻 is right it looks very much like Labour is trying to cover up the truth about its decision to hire Peter Mandelson.
I'm sure that's right. But (my point) dressing it up as an attack on lawyers is incoherent populist garbage: how is it their fault?
Of course (was slightly tongue in cheek as I imagine you know).
Well, yes. If you want to tackle the (undoubted) unfairness of better off parents being better able through hiring lawyers to look after their kids better then ensure LAs apply the law properly. But you can't blame lawyers.
(Like every god-fearing Englishman) I'd put hypocrisy near the top of my list of political sins. And watching Keir 'it's a two horse race' Starmer flinging accusations of 'populism' at Greens (and Reform) whilst leading a Government of conspicuous liars and populists is so grim.
![Phillipson said: “It’s been little surprise to me that there’s been such vociferous criticism from lawyers about the changes that we’re bringing. You know, they’ve got a vested interest in maintaining the failed status quo. There’s profit to be made.
“They want the system to remain as it is, because they make a profit often out of exploiting parents. And I don’t, for one second, blame parents [who] are pushing really hard for what their children need. Who wouldn’t? But it’s a fundamentally unfair system if parents who’ve got the money to hire lawyers end up getting a better deal than those who don’t.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:xurjtu2wa2akyi64gab34ahg/bafkreih5ecyespgyuuawn6lb5npg7izp2lpx6ik54aiiqgtjrcczhmv5fq)
Incoherent, populist ('let's kill all the lawyers') garbage, from Bridget Phillipson.
If you "don't blame parents" for "pushing really hard for what their children need," and "hiring lawyers" means you "get a better deal" aren't parents right to hire lawyers, and what is it lawyers are doing wrong?
He's saying she'll be dead.
Oh.
So OH Claire (49) just got a HepA travel jab and the dude said, 'come back in six months and get the booster and you'll be good for 25 years, which should do you?' and she's now quite traumatised. Send love.
You don't trust because the conduct of the law has taught you that it does not deserve trust.
Well, we rightly return art taken from Holocaust victims; the law recognizes that theft, however long ago, does not transfer title; and some debts, like mortgages, do survive death.
And, in any event, reparations are about compensation not criminality.
And you are plainly more interested in the law than he is in the day to day reality of trans lives otherwise he would ask, 'was it fair that we refused to hear from any trans people whilst we welcomed into the Court those who sought trans exclusion?'
I would say, only those whose interests are prioritised by the law think trust is of first order importance. If the law betrays your interests you quite understandably ask, 'how can I trust the law - and what is your motivation in asking me to keep silent as it betrays me?'
Very happy, in the best traditions of the Bar, to debate this proposition in any of the Inns of Court with any of my peers, including those elevated to the Bench.
Only 31% of trans people trust judges.
It would have been better - it would have gone some way to restoring trust - for Reed to apologise for some of the errors the Supreme Court *undoubtedly* made.
But now trans people are left to wonder why their trust in the rule of law doesn't seem to matter?
Polite society talks (as Gramsci would recognise) about 'maintaining trust in the rule of law' as though that were more important than the law meriting trust.
But when things go wrong - when judges shut people out of decisions that affect them and accept plainly false evidence - this must be said.
I'm a KC and I'm sure I understand how the law works and I would (also) say the For (Some) Women Scotland decision is the product of (perhaps unconscious) "bigotry, prejudice" - I would not go so far as to say "hatred."
A poor, tone deaf response from Lord Reed to the harm FWS has caused.
“Everyone deserves respect and everyone deserves the safety of being able to exist. Trans people are no exception to that.”
I'm really glad to see that @eddavey.libdems.org.uk attended this and got up on stage.
The Lib Dems are clear: Trans Rights are Human Rights
Hannah Spencer nailed it in her maiden speech, you can't have equality without solidarity. This International Women’s Day, we stand shoulder to shoulder with our trans siblings.
This is the company the UK government has embedded in the nation’s services. Seriously, fuck everyone who is excusing this.
I’m shocked, stunned etc.
Meanwhile, everywhere else around the world assumes Australia has cracked it and are rushing to copy their law.
My money's on you, McCormack.
