markwindmill.bsky.social
189 posts
77 followers
126 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
She can swim other days, but Bruce is getting pretty old and McCartney even older. You know what to do.
comment in response to
post
The surveillance and discrimination already exist in our society.
Is having a digital means to prove ID going to make things worse than having to provide utility bills, Home Office letters etc? Genuine question!
comment in response to
post
The ECHR allows states to decide how exactly to implement the principle of the Court's decision. It is open to people to go back to the Court if they think the Supreme Court decision contravenes their rights.
Pre same-sex marriage trans ppls existing marriages could be invalid if they changed sex
comment in response to
post
People are not barred from anywhere because of their gender identity; they can sometimes be barred because of their sex.
The law says that in some cases people can be treated as their natal sex not as their gender identity.
Now got family duties, so will say goodbye. Thanks for the discussion.
comment in response to
post
GRA came in when same-sex marriage was not legal, and men & women had different pension ages, both things which could sometimes disadvantage trans people. Neither apply any more
Also, the GRA is not totally null as it still regulates birth and death certs, fundamental state recognition of identity.
comment in response to
post
Well, the Supreme Court just unanimously said it was wrong, and always has been. Their judgement is the law. You are obviously entitled to say that the law is a bad law, and should be changed. But it doesn't stop being the law just because you disagree with it.
comment in response to
post
The protected characteristic 'gender reassignment' means you cannot legally be penalised for transitioning eg refused a job, service in a pub or shop, renting accomodation etc
But the protected characteristic does not require anyone or any organisation to recognise you as the gender you identify as
comment in response to
post
Stonewall's Equality Act training was legally wrong.
Said 'gender identity' was protected but characteristic is 'gender reassignment'. Seems same but legally v different. Trans ppl rightly can't be penalised for transitioning ('reassignment') but law doesn't require treat them as their 'identity'
comment in response to
post
The Supreme Court adopted his reasoning, so I would go to him for analysis of the law as it is.
Rather than eg the wishful thinking of made-up ‘Stonewall law’ that pretends the law is what they want it to be.
comment in response to
post
They could have just put one of his old ones on.
Possibly played backwards, to see if anyone noticed.
comment in response to
post
...and I don't think I'm making Musk rich, with X he seems to be doing the opposite to himself
comment in response to
post
… and I don’t think Musk is standing by a bank of flashing lights somewhere thinking, ‘you can carry on shitposting lads, we’ve still got that Windmill guy in England.’
comment in response to
post
Depends why you’re on social media and what you interact with, I think.
I don’t want followers, I try to follow people who know stuff/give reasons/are aware of opposing arguments.
My X timeline is 99% people deploring Trump and Musk, moaning about Labour (understandably) and Liverpool FC /
comment in response to
post
… and I don’t think Musk is standing by a bank of flashing lights somewhere thinking, ‘you can carry on shitposting lads, we’ve still got that Windmill guy in England.’
comment in response to
post
Depends why you’re on social media and what you interact with, I think.
I don’t want followers, I try to follow people who know stuff/give reasons/are aware of opposing arguments.
My X timeline is 99% people deploring Trump and Musk, moaning about Labour, debating gender/womens’ rights and LFC /
comment in response to
post
Congratulations on the win. True grit from the team.
comment in response to
post
Any specifics you’d care to share?
comment in response to
post
But you know really that no-one will be asked for ID. Service providers and employers just have to provide facilities, they don’t have to police them and they won’t want to. In a month’s time people will be using the same facilities at the gym and the pub as they always did. Great British fudge.
comment in response to
post
Maybe Ian could explain how the EHRC could have interpreted the Court’s decision differently but still complied with its essential findings? Would be grateful to hear his reasoning on this.
comment in response to
post
Ian said that he had got worked up about the decision. Seems like he still is, and is treating a Court decision he doesn’t like as if it were contrived by a quango and could have been ignored because it doesn’t suit his ideas.
It’s the equivalent of the Brexiteers’ magical reliance on ‘WTO terms’
comment in response to
post
The idea that the EHRC *wanted* this outcome is, to put it politely, unevidenced. They didn’t want the Court to decide the issue, and said Parliament should legislate anew … because they could see what the Court was bound to decide. I don’t love the clumsy outcome but it’s not the EHRC’s doing.
comment in response to
post
If you have no idea if the reasoning you could read the judgement, which is available on the Supreme Court website for free.
It is quite long but sets out the Court’s reasoning clearly.
comment in response to
post
The EHRC did not want the Supreme Court to decide the case at all. They effectively asked the Court to leave it to Parliament to legislate the issue.
The EHRC has not misinterpreted the ruling. The law is that single sex services must be single sex. Mixed sex services can also exist in some cases
comment in response to
post
Trump is a terrible authoritarian! That's *the* worst!!
Also, we should fire people who don't say things the way I say.
comment in response to
post
Suspicious absence of Mithril
comment in response to
post
Nah, this is a distraction. It’s the vast majority of us normies putting the heating on and driving to work/shops that’s doing the vast majority of the damage. Do tax the rich please, but we need alternatives to fossil fuels for all the population.
comment in response to
post
Dr Foran knows nothing about the law, according to many comments here.
Yet the Supreme Court agreed with his analysis.
Maybe better to lobby Parliament for a change in the law, if you don’t like it as it is, instead of wishful misunderstanding of how things actually stand.
comment in response to
post
I’d go for May 2025.
comment in response to
post
Excellent.
I have accidentally copied you, since a sucker from the loganberry near my greenhouse has emerged inside it and is enjoying the warmth.
comment in response to
post
What legal faults does this blog have?
How does it compare legally to Crash Wigley's blog?
comment in response to
post
Bloody hope so
comment in response to
post
But if there were bats in Essex, what then, eh?
comment in response to
post
Yes, they are so consumed by factional positioning within the party - which did bring GE win - that they project it onto the electorate.
(Sorry, just repeating out loud to myself what you have already said in your post...)
comment in response to
post
After the election I wrote to my Lab MP urging govt go for a positive narrative on benefits (insurance for hard times that come to us all, adequate incomes avoid the bigger, corrosive costs of poverty etc.)
Now feel hopelessly naive. And having to work with fellow Labour members against 'my' govt.
comment in response to
post
You know that no-one will be asking. You are trying too hard.
comment in response to
post
Just sent cross emails to Liz Kendall and dear Keir saying that I haven't pushed Labour leaflets through people's doors for 40+ years to enable disability benefits cuts that the Tories wouldn't have dared try on.
What are they smoking at No10? It's bizarrely inept politics (and harmful as policy.)
comment in response to
post
Just sent cross emails to Liz Kendall and dear Keir saying that I haven't pushed Labour leaflets through people's doors for 40+ years to enable disability benefits cuts that the Tories wouldn't have dared try on.
What are they smoking at No10? It's bizarrely inept politics (and harmful as policy.)
comment in response to
post
Aren’t they saying that you can be mixed sex and admit anyone you want of any sex or gender? But if your rules say single sex the law means sex not gender.
So any association can admit trans people by calling themselves mixed-sex (I think)?
comment in response to
post
We can't use ever-expanding amounts of raw materials.
But we can have ever-expanding scientific and technical advance eg cars emitting far less or no pollutants than when I were a lad, wind and solar instead of coal, email instead of paper.
comment in response to
post
You say, ‘We have embedded in law that these people on some level, cannot escape their biological sex’.
But that is embedded in reality. It is not possible to escape your sexed body.
That is why trans people’s lives are often so difficult, even with maximum social acceptance.
comment in response to
post
All by myself, blimey. I never hoped for such influence.
comment in response to
post
Oh, no. Doxxed.
comment in response to
post
Did you read my reply above?
comment in response to
post
No.
Trans people will continue to be in all areas of life, as they rightly are now, except the few areas where sex really does matter.
comment in response to
post
If you start to reference Jim Crow or apartheid you have lost the argument and public support.
comment in response to
post
Yes
comment in response to
post
Yes, in the small minority of cases where sex matters, like refuges etc
In every other respect, no, trans people will carry on being in workplaces, social life, book groups, community choirs, voluntary work, and the rest. And should and will be fully accepted as people (who happen to be trans.)
comment in response to
post
Or gone wrong in society when women have to point out that biological reality still exists - and in some limited cases eg women’s refuges, prisons, hospital, sports etc this affects women particularly. The protesters said that women’s and trans rights need to be balanced. The Supreme Court agreed.
comment in response to
post
The Supreme Court did not change the law today.
Trans people are still protected under the Equality Act 2010, they have not been stripped of any rights.