@StroppyW@ClaireCoutinho Most don’t have EHCP (getting one these days are as rare as hens teeth) so parents pay for smaller class sizes which can only benefit their child in the long run.
Barnaby Philip John Webber
11/01/2004-13/06/2023 💔
If you can, share these images of the beautiful soul stolen from us by the worst of humanity.
Let his face today burn bright.
Barney, I promise you there will be accountability 💛💚
For You. For Grace. For Ian.
@julie_light@mary1mary18@lazysmokes@GBNEWS No, you are being condescending and not understanding my point! Those monstrous actions could have only been committed by a monster! His paranoia didnt stop him calling his brother to watch the news now did it! Attitudes like yours are why these innocent people were murdered.
My thoughts on the @EHRC guidance laid yesterday; this is not about non-existent "rights". It is about the safety of women - mothers, sisters, wives, daughters. We men need to hear their voices. Virginia Woolf : "Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes".
My intro on @TimesRadio yesterday:
Where I live there are two different routes to and from the tube station. One, let’s call it Acacia Avenue, is quiet and residential. The other, London Road, is a busy major route with lots of traffic. At all times of the day, I automatically head for Acacia Road. It’s just much nicer.
The women in my family, on the other hand, will never willingly make that walk after dark. They live with an anxiety that most men find it hard to imagine, and frankly, rarely think about unprompted.
Last year 739,000 women were sexually assaulted in Britain. Virtually all such assaults - nine out of ten - are perpetrated by men. One in four women have been attacked at some time in their lives. Acacia Avenue is exactly the sort of place in which most women fear that they become vulnerable, and they are right.
As the author Virginia Woolf once wrote " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes".
I think this is the right context in which to understand the furore over the guidance being laid today by the government, over the meaning of the words man and woman when it comes to providing services and facilities in workplaces.
Many men think this is about a rather arcane dispute about who gets to use what loo. For their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, it isn’t.
In a previous life, as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I had a hand in writing this country’s equality laws, in particular the 2010 Equality Act. It never occurred to any of us that there could be any confusion or dispute over the meaning of the words man and woman. But it has taken a decade of campaigning, a Supreme Court judgement and now hundreds of pages of guidance to settle the issue.
This is not about so called trans rights, which are completely unaffected by this guidance, since no-one has ever had the right to walk into a changing room reserved for teenage girls.
What it does mean is that women and girls are guaranteed the protection they deserve, and that their safety, which we spent half a decade drafting law to ensure, is protected.
But the whole business illuminates some serious issues in our politics.
First that many of our institutions, in spite of the fact that they always knew what the right thing to do was, decided to ignore the fears of their women customers and employees, under pressure from noisy pressure groups. Instead, the people who were supposed to be the grown ups behaved as though the law said what campaigners wanted it to say, rather than what it actually said. They settled for what they hoped would be a quiet life.
In a democracy, there’s little point in Parliament deciding anything if the law is then made an ass by activists intimidating bosses in companies, schools, universities and the media into doing something different.
Second, at the heart of the campaign to undermine the Equality Act is an idea that we specifically rejected in 2010, so called self-identification. That is to say, that it should be up to the individual to decide whether they have what’s called a protected characteristic - are you male or female, are you black or white. The problem is that self-ID would destroy the operation of any law against discrimination.
Look, it would almost certainly have been to my advantage as a young man to self-identify as a handsome, white public schoolboy. None of those things is true of me. And at various points I am pretty sure it’s been to my disadvantage. It is certainly statistically likely to have been to my disadvantage.
But according to the logic of those who say that self-ID should be the rule and that anyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they are male or female, black or white or Asian, were I to complain about racial discrimination, it would be difficult for anyone prove that I’d been discriminated against because of my race since anybody to whom I’d lost out could just tell the courts that they too were black.
I know that sounds like Alice in Wonderland but you can google the case where a chap, both of whose parents are white, insisted he should get money from the Arts Council because he so identified with the black struggle that he considered himself black, and everyone should accept his point of view. In the United States and Brazil exactly such outlandish claims have been made and people rewarded to the disadvantage of people actually born into minority families.
I have even been told about firms who, when reporting their gender pay gaps have put men who just happen to like wearing dresses at weekends - nothing wrong with that, let me be clear - into the female column and told their women employees that they really haven’t got anything to moan about because statistically they are paid equally, and they should get back in their box.
So today’s guidance isn’t just another tiresome chapter in culture wars. It is , I hope, a halt to the efforts to undermine one of the most important pieces of legislation on the statute book, by people who, for their own reasons, would prefer us to be living in the 1950s world of Mad Men.
To the non-exhaustive list of professionals below; I’d like them to see WHO they actually failed.
Not systems, policies, targets and departments.
But my beautiful, innocent 19 year old son.
The card is this year’s Mother’s Day card from his younger brother Charlie.
It still says ‘us’ and he adds his brother’s name, but in brackets. 💔
It’s breaks my heart and my soul everyday; and always will.
Kate Meynell. Rob Griffin. Leigh Sanders. Karim Khalil. Samantha Shallows. Alan Murphy. Michelle Mannion.
Nigel Blackwood. Leo McSweeney. Ross Mirvis.
(Plus NHS staff to follow).
⬆️
Shame on you all.
If he was your son; would you still have done the same?
I sincerely doubt it…..
#nottinghaminquiry 💚💛
@TheAA_UK l booked a mobile service for Friday 3/4… you confirmed this via email and text. You followed up with daily confirmation of appointment. hour before appointment l received a voicemail saying appointment cancelled since it was Good Friday!! You’ve still taken payment?
Update…
I was contacted on Tuesday afternoon - another app was made for today, received email confirming app asking to have vehicle ready for 8.30pm.
At 9.15 text - engineer would arrive 9.45… it is 10.55 no show. Rang central number and they can’t get hold of the department!
@TheAA_UK AA cancelled my appointment less than an hour before my booked and paid for appointment. I should have been a priority to call today. I’m sorry you are left to deal with the shoddy customer service of your colleagues but please don’t make excuses for this. Not a good look!
@TheAA_UK So why hasn’t anyone contacted me today, the voicemail l was left said to contact them today, which l did, on hold for over two hours! No call from the department either. I can rebook no issue but why should l pay again for something I’ve already paid for…
I then received an email saying l had cancelled the appointment!!!
What on earth is going on with your customer service department! Appalling customer service. I’ve tried to call numerous times this morning but no response despite being on hold for nearly two hours!
The price of a barrel of Brent oil was $107 this morning and has now fallen to $91, and it is likely to continue dropping. Let us see how quickly petrol stations and home heating oil companies reduce their prices.
Last week we were told they were not price gouging and that their prices more or less follow the live price of oil. If that is true and they are not lying to the public, we should see prices fall tomorrow.
My guess is that there will be no reduction for weeks while these companies, along with the government, continue to rake in the profits.
Some people are reporting petrol, diesel and home heating oil has already gone up today. If that’s the case, it’s nothing more than price gouging and should be illegal.
@RetroRobson@MartinSLewis I’m referring to their parents income not theirs - low income households can’t help their children financially so they will have uni fees and maintenance loans too… well off parents are likely to help more financially so less overall debt