F*ck the Tories: a Thread Dedicated to Suella Braverman

[CXRAndy]

My argument is that the government shouldn't change it without permission from parliament

That's what they do, the sitting party introduces bills that are voted through by the majority they have in the house.

 

[Bromptonaut]

It's not one person (Braverman). The EHRC itself have made it clear what the law has always said. If it didn't say that then Stonewall itself wouldn't be campaigning to remove all the exemptions about single sex spaces. I've given you the links and screenshots umpteen times but you insist that no such exemptions exist. This is just an attempt to confuse people about what the law says. You can regard the EA exemptions as bigoted if you like, many don't and are very glad it exists.

As usual though we are going over old stuff ad nauseum.

The EHRC website says:

We are an independent statutory body with the responsibility to encourage equality and diversity, eliminate unlawful discrimination, and protect and promote the human rights of everyone in Britain.

It was established by the Equality Act 2006. That act and the 2010 act set out its duties etc.

The EHRC can make clear what it believes the law to say. It can issue guidance. In some areas it has enforcement duties and powers to back them up.

It is not a fount of knowledge on anything and everything to do with Equality.

If there is doubt about what the law says and how it should be applied in particular areas then the commission can have its say.

However if there is a serious issue as to how the law should be applied in specific circumstances then, while the Commission may have a view and might even support one PC group or another in advancing their case the ultimate arbiter is a Judge or panel of Judges.

 

[CXRAndy]

but it is undemocratic

It was because it conflicted with women's rights. Which are far more important than some fringe cult

 

[Bromptonaut]

It was because it conflicted with women's rights. Which are far more important than some fringe cult

Some people said it conflicted with women's rights. Others say they're wrong.

 

[monkers]

It was because it conflicted with women's rights. Which are far more important than some fringe cult

Oh do knob off you bell-end. If you can't or won't consider the issues in a meaningful way, just do one.

 

[CXRAndy]

If a hundred males and a hundred trans women, were marooned on an island. In a hundred years all there would be a pile of bones, all the DNA indicated 200 males


A hundred males and hundred women , same scenario. There would be a thriving living community

 

[monkers]

If a hundred males and a hundred trans women, were marooned on an island. In a hundred years all there would be a pile of bones, all the DNA indicated 200 males


A hundred males and hundred women , same scenario. There would be a thriving living community

You DNA would be a separate class - 'pillocks'.

 

[CXRAndy]

You DNA would be a separate class - 'pillocks'.

All indicating every skeleton was male

 

[monkers]

All indicating every skeleton was male

No meaning you are were one pillock on the island among 199 others living together in a community.

Go on, say something intelligent or interesting , just for a change.

 

[CXRAndy]

Sorry I'd be with the real women

 

[monkers]

Sorry I'd be with the real women

That would leave all the real women wanting a real man or a woman like me.

 

[CXRAndy]

That would leave all the real women wanting a real man or a woman like me.

It's the only thing we have agreement on, we both like........

 

[multitool]

Well, I think I now understand the Cameron move.

He's been brought back to move the Conservative party back to the centre ground, and right on top of the ground on which Starmer has moved his party.

It's clear from his pronouncements on Israel, which are relatively moderate, and on closer movement towards the EU.

The Tory Right will be livid. They've lost Braverman because she didn't deliver electorally, so they are sidelined. Those that hitched their coat tails to Braverman are finished, for now, but will be squawking like crazy.

Fascinating

 

[Bromptonaut]

They are entitled to live as their acquired gender (whatever that even means) ,

It means what S1 (1)(2) of the GRA says it means.

The law bites both ways.

 

[monkers]

They are entitled to live as their acquired gender (whatever that even means) , but schools aren't required to accommodate them living in their acquired gender by not enforcing the exemptions on single sex spaces that are permitted by the Equality Act. They can accommodate things like name changes if they wish but they aren't obliged to. Nobody is going to be denied a GRC at 18 because their high school wouldn't let them change with the opposite sex for PE in Year 11.

You are doing a Braverman. The EqA is not the only Act - not all human rights or the rights of children specifically are held in the EqA.

If schools are not bound by the EqA to accommodate (and we can agree on that) but also not prevented by it, then they are free to follow the Children's Act, the Public Sector Duty Act, Common Law, and other advice from the Children's Commission, the NSPCC, the NEC, and for that matter OFSTED. Note Braverman's opinion is worth about as much as your's or mine, ie Jack shoot.

You also conveniently overlook the ruling of the High Court who have ruled that exemptions under the EqA must satisfy a very high bar, and that none of the exemptions can be used to put in place blanket bans.