Shellzybellz 🤪

What you lookin' at? 🤪

A bit sweary.

Strong opinions!

Support Jew-hate marches?
Stay the fuck away from me, you NAZI bastards!!! 😡

Free Iran!

[Shellzybellz 🤪 @Shellzzybellz]

This!!!

[Dyan Liora 𓆩✺𓆪 @magentaindigena]

Without Arab Imperialism the Middle East would look a lot different.

[PG11 @pramila1144]

@darrengrimes LIEbour & the Lanyard Class

please just leave
…

[Darren Grimes @darrengrimes]

What a time to bloody well announce a ‘judicial and legal diversity board’. Good God.

[Akua Reindorf KC @akuareindorf]

I can tell you why it’s unworkable in your workplace.

It’s not about the workplace.

[Contrary Mary @mary_q_contrary]

@TheGreenParty "Legislative action must be taken to create an equalities framework that protects trans people’s safety, dignity and humanity."

The trans people:

[Me @Naeluckmate]

@TheGreenParty Why does the safety, dignity and humanity of females not matter to you? If males are allowed access to our single sex spaces that is discrimination and harassment against females. Shame on you.

[Kate Birrell @kamabi]

@TheGreenParty That FOI evidence from Translucent about no complaints? They asked councils about complaints about ‘transwomen’ - I expect women when they complained would say the complaint was about a MAN being where he shouldn’t be. Could explain this discrepancy, no?

[lowercase @lowercaselevity]

@TheGreenParty will you please confirm that you are in fact campaigning to change the law to remove single-sex equality law?

it would be nice if you could be transparent about what you actually want.

[Fender Davecaster @DaveOurPlanet]

@TheGreenParty How dare you! How dare you oppose women's hard-won rights! This is shameful.
And it is also pointless posturing as opposing the Code does not change the law. The Code reflects the law as it is and has been since 2010 (arguably since 1975).
This is pure misogyny from the Greens

[LGB Alliance Cymru @LGBAllies_Cymru]

@TheGreenParty Gay people and women don't deserve safety dignity and humanity then? The Supreme Court judgment was partly brought about by lesbians fighting to retain social spaces and events for lesbians. Men calling themselves lesbians have driven us back into the closet and you think it's ok

[Nicky 🍀OFAB♀️KPSS @Drusilla451]

@TheGreenParty Existing laws that recognise and protect women, girls and same sex attracted people are 'confusing and cruel'

Women's and gay rights should be 'rejected' 🤬

The Greens desperate to take us back not decades but centuries

[Discourteous woman @Permanentlypis1]

@TheGreenParty At least be honest about what you want. You want to dismantle single sex spaces, services and sports. To erase what it means to be a woman and same sex attracted. You want women and girls to be forced to put ourselves second or exclude ourselves completely for men just like this.

[TheSerf&Terf @LostPompeyLad]

@dshensmith @TheGreenParty Funny how the ECHR can be altered or completely thrown aside / ignored when it doesn't work for the liberals, Edd Davies said the same thing...he want ls it ignored...

[Tim Prestwood @Tim_Prestwood]

@dshensmith @TheGreenParty They know Dan. But the Greens don't care about the law. You only have to look at their leader; he was fraudulently selling fake hypnotic breast enlargement services fgs.

[Daniel ShenSmith (BlackBeltBarrister) @dshensmith]

Whatever it is you want, biological women and men deserve to have a truly single-sex space. So regardless of the Code, and even if it's withdrawn (which is highly unlikely), the law is still the law as it was clarified by the Supreme Court. Single sex spaces must, therefore, be maintained on that basis.

[Shellzybellz 🤪 @Shellzzybellz]

@TheGreenParty https://t.co/DhBnDKFCaM

[Akua Reindorf KC @akuareindorf]

This is a confusing letter @sianberry.

I have some questions:

1. You’re asking for legislative action in response to a non-legislative Code. Assuming it’s the Equality Act you want to change, does it follow that you accept that the Code accurately reflects the Act as it is?

[Shellzybellz 🤪 @Shellzzybellz]

@BBCr4today @bbcnickrobinson https://t.co/Yac2xEqIQt

[Maurice Cousins @MDC12345678]

Not for the first time, @RishiSunak was right.

When he warned in 2023 that Net Zero would reduce the supply of meat and suppress demand, his critics mocked him as a conspiracy theorist.

But the test was never whether the CCC used the words "meat tax", as the BBC and other SW1 insiders claimed at the time. The real test was whether Net Zero policy requires lower meat consumption, fewer domestic livestock and less land used for farming. In other words, whether it would shrink supply, push up prices and force down demand.

Fast forward three years and Ed Miliband is legislating in line with the CCC’s recommended level for CB7. That matters because the CCC’s pathway shows what meeting that target will likely require.

The CCC assumes cattle and sheep numbers fall by 27% by 2040. Yet this is not happening in a vacuum. Sky News recently found in a mini investigation that farmers have already reduced cattle herds by roughly 3% a year for a decade, due in part to rising costs and changes to UK domestic agricultural policy.

Labour is also pursuing measures that may not carry the Net Zero label, but will have the same practical effect. As we speak, Ministers are considering environmental permits for cattle farmers. They say this is about river pollution, but whatever the stated purpose, the cumulative effect is clear.

Even without a formal "meat tax", this Labour government and their allies in the green blob are adding cost, regulation and pressure to domestic livestock production.

The end result? Higher food bills.

Chart source: @7Kiwi

[Maurice Cousins @MDC12345678]

Not for the first time, @RishiSunak was right.

When he warned in 2023 that Net Zero would reduce the supply of meat and suppress demand, his critics mocked him as a conspiracy theorist.

But the test was never whether the CCC used the words "meat tax", as the BBC and other SW1 insiders claimed at the time. The real test was whether Net Zero policy requires lower meat consumption, fewer domestic livestock and less land used for farming. In other words, whether it would shrink supply, push up prices and force down demand.

Fast forward three years and Ed Miliband is legislating in line with the CCC’s recommended level for CB7. That matters because the CCC’s pathway shows what meeting that target will likely require.

The CCC assumes cattle and sheep numbers fall by 27% by 2040. Yet this is not happening in a vacuum. Sky News recently found in a mini investigation that farmers have already reduced cattle herds by roughly 3% a year for a decade, due in part to rising costs and changes to UK domestic agricultural policy.

Labour is also pursuing measures that may not carry the Net Zero label, but will have the same practical effect. As we speak, Ministers are considering environmental permits for cattle farmers. They say this is about river pollution, but whatever the stated purpose, the cumulative effect is clear.

Even without a formal "meat tax", this Labour government and their allies in the green blob are adding cost, regulation and pressure to domestic livestock production.

The end result? Higher food bills.

Chart source: @7Kiwi

[Steve Walker: #NAFO #KPSS #FBPE @tweetdodger]

@akuareindorf @ForWomenScot They all seem to think the SC judgment can simply be ignored, and wherever the law says "sex" we just read that as "gender".

If they want that to become the law, then they have to pass an Act to amend EqA, Workplace Regs etc. Abolish single-sex rights forever. Ain't happening.

[Drop the Trans for Medicalised Cross-Dressers @PassionatePetes]

@GraemeDownieMP - The draft statutory guidance confirms sex to be the determinant of people lawfully allowed spaces and facilities. Is that not simple enough for you, are you aware of the FWS 2025 Ruling? Sex is the determinant in law - not certificated sex - which male and female cross-dressers have previously and erroneously relied upon to violate spaces for the exclusive use of the opposite sex. A GRC is now of limited use socially or publicly and can only be used to distort the public record. Rights accord to a persons sex, not a label they put on themselves.

With your lack of knowledge/awareness and disrespect for women - which appears widespread amongst self-serving MP's - I wouldn't trust you to tie my shoelaces, let alone resolve anything. Utterly dismayed with such pitiful standards and lack of education amongst MP's, are you all this thick?

[Akua Reindorf KC @akuareindorf]

@BettsCaro @ForWomenScot And note also that the key talking point is now "this is for parliament to sort out - we'll take it from here"