Sally Davies

Semi retired RMN, very pro Europe, very anti Tory. #makevotesmatter #EnoughisEnough

[Mike Morrison @MDMorrison82]

I’ve been called an adopted son of Scotland, something I don’t take lightly.
I never thought I’d call upon its powers but if the Scots approve, might the army retweet? If Twitter can send me to the Cup, it can send one of ours home.

[MarshFamilySongs @MarshSongs]

In the nick of time for the celebratory weekend in the USA, here's "Trumpy Doodle" - our 250th anniversary version of "Yankee Doodle" that you can also download as a song on Bandcamp, with the lyrics:
https://t.co/AzgAt4Zolz

#nokings #america250 🎶🚫👑✊

[Caroline Criado Perez @CCriadoPerez]

@BC_Lostproperty hi my brother was in a cab yesterday and thinks he dropped his passport. Pick up near Marylebone at 15:40; 1545 drop off on Park Road in St John’s Wood. Has it been found?

[Ted Smith 🇪🇺 @TedUrchin]

Another bit of good news under Labour.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it I say.
@UKLabour
#StickWithStarmer

[Spencer @chris_cross1498]

My MP has signed the EDM, this is my letter to her…

I am writing as a constituent regarding your decision to sign Nadia Whittome’s Early Day Motion (EDM 240) calling for Parliament to disapprove the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) draft Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations.

I am going to assume that you understand that this is statutory guidance and that rejecting it does not change the underlying law, as confirmed by the UK Supreme Court. If my assumption is correct, you must therefore believe that the EHRC’s guidance does not accurately reflect the law. Could you please explain to me which specific parts of the guidance you consider incorrect or unlawful, and why?

Furthermore, the EHRC is an independent statutory regulator, completely separate from the government of the day. Its sole duty in drafting this Code of Practice is to act as an objective referee—translating the Equality Act and recent Supreme Court rulings into clear, practical instructions for service providers. By using an Early Day Motion to try to block an independent body's guidance, you are engaging in an unprecedented overreach. You are effectively attempting a political veto of a regulator’s objective statement of what the law actually is. If Parliament does not like the reality of the law, the correct constitutional path is to propose new primary legislation to amend the Equality Act, not to politically interfere with an independent commission's statutory duty to explain it.

The biological reality is that trans-identifying men (trans women) remain male, regardless of hormones or cosmetic surgeries. Statistically, the vast majority do not undergo any surgical transition at all and are attracted exclusively to women. I firmly believe that individuals should have the absolute freedom to express themselves, wear whatever clothes they choose, wear make-up, and live their lives free from harassment or hassle. However, as a biological subset of men, they absolutely belong in male single-sex spaces, and they are entirely welcome there. There is no reason for them to be excluded from their own sex demographic.

By prioritising the feelings of a small group over clear sex-based protections, the position that a subset of men should use female single-sex spaces tramples on the rights, privacy, safety, and dignity of women and girls—who make up over 51% of the population.

As an effeminate gay man in my mid-50s, I have spent decades using male single-sex spaces (toilets, changing rooms, etc.) and have never once experienced any kind of bad or threatening incident in them. If you or others believe male single-sex spaces are not safe for trans women, the logical and fair response would be to campaign for men to behave better in those spaces and for better enforcement of existing rules against harassment or violence.

I look forward to you providing me with a specific, detailed explanation as to exactly why you believe this guidance does not accurately reflect the law. If you are unable to demonstrate where the EHRC has legally erred, then I expect you to do the right thing as our representative and remove your name from this Early Day Motion.

[Labour Heartlands @Labourheartland]

Pride, the old proverb warns, comes before a fall. And so it has proved.

You can measure the fall precisely. Among Britain's largest corporations, social media posts mentioning Pride have collapsed by ninety-two per cent in two years. Manchester Pride, forty years old, went into liquidation owing creditors three million pounds. Reform councils in Durham, Gateshead and Staffordshire have cut the grants and hauled down the flags. The sponsors who once queued to wear the rainbow are walking away, and the names on the departure list read like a stock index.

The easy story is that Britain is turning against gay people. The polling says otherwise. Only seven per cent of Britons hold a negative view of gay and lesbian people. The right to love your own sex, to marry, to live openly, has never been more widely accepted. That war is over. It was won.

What the public has turned against is what Pride became while nobody was watching. Capital rented the flag and turned a riot into a retail opportunity. And behind the corporate floats came something worse: an ideology that brands same-sex attraction itself a heresy, that saw lesbians removed from a gay rights parade by police "for their own safety," and that watched eight Darlington nurses dragged through a tribunal for wanting a female changing room while their own union posted clenched fists against them.

In 1984, Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners stood on street corners with collecting buckets for the coalfields, and the miners repaid the debt by carrying gay rights into the heart of the labour movement. That was solidarity of the old kind: it cost something, and it came with no sponsorship deal attached. Compare it with the unions of 2026, who found twenty-five thousand pounds for a Pride float and called women bigots for wanting to change in private. That is not solidarity. That is capture.

So let us be clear about what is dying and what is not. Rainbow capitalism is dying, good riddance. The ideology that recast same-sex attraction as a heresy and women's rights as an obstacle deserves to die with it. What cannot die, because it was never for sale, is the thing underneath: people standing with people, the right to your own body and your own desire, and the solidarity that makes the demand stick.

They built a movement so a man could love a man and a woman could love a woman. Then they called that love a heresy and rented the flag to any corporate taker. Pride comes before a fall. But the cause beneath it, love without shame, truth without fear, solidarity without sale, remains.

Read the full article: https://t.co/CybV3jdvEK

#Pride #womensrightsmatter

[Sally Davies @ServiceTree007]

@SamaHoole I make steak and kidney with suet dumplings, very popular with my family

[Emma Harriet Nicholson @Baroness_Nichol]

Trades’ Unions ……

[Just Dave now @justdavenow89]

If Brexit happened again tomorrow how would you vote

please repost after so its not echo chamber vote thanks

[Just me - Thomas @TomSoede]

https://t.co/lgrGV27p4v

[Sex Matters @SexMattersOrg]

We will see the City of London in the High Court on 3rd and 4th November. Support our challenge:
https://t.co/fWHgQuL2UB

[Sex Matters @SexMattersOrg]

NEW: Poll shows that the vast majority of people prefer straightforward single-sex facilities in workplaces and public spaces.

This varies little by age or voting pattern. Politicians who prevaricate over the Supreme Court judgment are out of step with the public.

Sex Matters commissioned an independent, nationally representative poll. We asked:

“For each of the following, do you prefer them to be single sex or mixed sex?”

[createstreets @createstreets]

Apply now to join us this summer, but hurry, only a few places remain!
https://t.co/yzI0obO6xA

[Roger Gall @Shambles151]

Nigel Farage has NOT been arrested for willingly and deliberately inciting riots in Southampton.

Please RT this until he is.

Thank you.

[Roger Gall @Shambles151]

Should Nigel Farage be arrested for willingly and deliberately inciting riots in Southampton?

Please RT after voting - thank you.

[Mr Ethical 🚩 @nw_nicholas]

Let's get #ChargeFarage trending

[Sally Davies @ServiceTree007]

@RMTunion @BellaWallerstei Strikes are always inconvenient to someone, I absolutely support your right to strike and I’m grateful for the support you give to other workers

[Paul Castle @Goto_paulcastle]

What strikes me is that people are treating Mandelson’s private frustration as proof of Starmer’s failure, when it may actually be evidence of Starmer’s independence.
Mandelson is the ultimate New Labour operator. If he’s complaining that Starmer won’t govern with enough “panache”, won’t go full “Trumpian”, and keeps refusing to follow the path Mandelson wants, that doesn’t automatically weaken Starmer — it suggests Starmer is making decisions that even one of Labour’s most influential power-brokers cannot control.
The real question raised by these papers isn’t “Why did Mandelson criticise Starmer?”
It’s: when has Peter Mandelson ever not criticised leaders behind closed doors?
Blair was criticised. Brown was criticised. Miliband was criticised. Internal critique is practically Mandelson’s native language.
Despite all the talk of “advance/buckle”, Starmer still led Labour from opposition to a landslide victory after 14 years out of power, while repeatedly taking positions that angered different factions of his own party.
That may not be weakness.
It may be the difference between performance politics and governing.
Ironically, the more Mandelson complains that Starmer won’t follow his preferred script, the stronger the evidence becomes that Starmer is governing on his own terms.
#KeirStarmer #LabourGovernment #UKPolitics #LeadershipMatters

[JT @BritainisCool]

Who would you rather have as UK Prime Minister?

[Sally Davies @ServiceTree007]

@ailsa27944 @ZidiKuri14927 That is a good idea, well said 👏👏👏