@BBCNews@Nat_freespeech Women’s changing room.
It was a WOMEN’S room.
For goodness’ sake, BBC, You can’t even centre women in their own discrimination case!!
1. Failure to provide corroborating evidence of any incident of IDF soldiers targeting children: A review of the incidents cited by the COI shows no evidence supporting the report’s headline allegation. In none of the cases can the COI definitively establish that a civilian Palestinian child was identified by an IDF soldier and intentionally targeted for death. That conclusion is speculative throughout. The COI’s methodology effectively assumes that a child killed in Gaza was both killed by the IDF and intentionally targeted merely because the child died.
I hate that phrase: 'gender distress.'
A cohort of children have ALWAYS felt uncomfortable with cultural and social sex-role expectations and stereotypes and some openly defy them beginning when they are very young. If they have homophobic parents, these children are sent off to the conversion clinics to be medicalized in hopes of staving off future adult homosexuality.
Older kids will will rebel against 'gendered expectations' around puberty when their bodies and brains are changing rapidly. For girls that can mean pushing back against a sexualized/porn culture and increased scrutiny over whether they are 'feminine' enough.
Nonconformity, or outright rebellion to and rejection of sex-roles, shouldn't be pathologized or labelled as 'gender distress'.
So much to be offended about but I absolutely HATE the misogyny of their name choices. Harriet Tubman, a remarkable social activist who escaped slavery and rescued many enslaved people is turned into Harriet Tugsman, a crude sexual pun. The disrespect for women is off the scale.
Your regular reminder the Lemkin Institute has nothing to do with its namesake, the great international lawyer Raphael Lemkin. His family has objected to the group invoking their relative's name in vain.
"Put simply, it takes physically healthy children with normal pubertal development and subjects them to powerful drugs which may weaken their bones, affect their ability to think, damage sexual function and make them unable to have children of their own"
- Dr Caroline Johnson.
@lb_southwark Oppose all you like, the law is the law as clarified by the Supreme Court last year. The Equality Act has been in place since 2010 and it protects women's rights to single sex spaces. The EHRC code merely sets out how organisations must do that, it's guidance only, not a new law.
The EU has invited Taliban officials to Brussels to discuss a migration deal — and today I am shaken and deeply disturbed by this.
This is the same Taliban that banned girls from secondary schools and forced them into marriage. The same Taliban that, earlier this month, arrested dozens of women in Herat for how they were dressed. The same Taliban that detains, beats and executes women who dare to speak out or break their rules.
Through its system of gender apartheid, the Taliban have erased women and girls from public life. Europe must not legitimise a regime responsible for one of the worst human rights crises in the world.
Any engagement with the Taliban must begin and end with the rights of Afghan women and girls.
Slarty's sister swam the Bristol channel like a mermaid (one of the good ones) for a charity that looks amazing. Being in the water can be incredibly liberating for disabled people and this charity teaches disabled children to swim. Simple as that. So they have that option of the water taking away some limitations and granting some freedoms for the rest of their lives.
It's such a simple and worthwhile idea, give some thought to a donation.
And an incredible achievement by Slarty's sister.
Just 223 signatures required to get to 10,000 and only one day left to sign! We can do this 💪🏻
Please sign and share today.
Research is needed into the effects of erasing the words women, mother, and breastfeeding in women’s healthcare.
Don’t let them steal our words!
Sign here 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
https://t.co/QfoPvZDFXS
I live in Peckham where @lb_southwark banned @MirandaNewsom from council gym and leisure centres for a year for objecting to a TIM in the female changing room. Our council is happy to unlawfully exclude women from a women's single sex service whilst letting blokes in.
Seeing some of the embarrassingly hateful reactions to Starmer's resignation today, I thought it was worth resharing this.
The level of personal hostility directed at Keir Starmer deserves scrutiny in its own right. Not because he should be immune from criticism, but because the tone and intensity of the attacks tell us something unhealthy about the state of democratic politics.
Starmer is a conventional political figure. Cautious, legalistic, incremental. He frustrates people precisely because he is managerial rather than messianic. Yet the reaction to him often goes far beyond disagreement, tipping into visceral hatred more commonly reserved for authoritarians or demagogues.
Much of this hostility is disconnected from concrete policy. It is not about specific votes, proposals or outcomes, but about projection. A belief that Starmer embodies betrayal, bad faith or hidden malice. That kind of politics runs on suspicion rather than evidence.
This matters because democracy depends on the assumption of good faith among opponents. You can think a leader is wrong, timid, or misguided without believing they are fundamentally illegitimate. Once politics becomes moralised to the point of demonisation, compromise is reframed as treachery and pluralism as weakness.
The pattern is familiar. In fragmented, polarised systems, anger concentrates not on extremists, whose intentions are clear, but on moderates, who disappoint maximalists on all sides. The centre becomes the lightning rod precisely because it resists totalising narratives.
There is also a media and online dynamic at work. Incentives reward outrage, not proportionality. Algorithms favour contempt over analysis. Over time, this creates a political culture in which relentless personal attack feels normal, even virtuous, rather than disgusting.
None of this is a defence of Starmer’s decisions, instincts or record. Those should be argued over robustly as you do in a democracy. The problem is the substitution of critique with hostility and the quiet erosion of democratic norms that follows when political opponents are treated as enemies rather than rivals.
A democracy cannot function if every election is framed as an existential struggle against internal evil. At some point, the target may change, but the damage to trust, restraint and culture remains.
@lb_southwark Please tell us where the guidance has got the law wrong or if you would like the law to be different please tell us explicitly what you think it should be , particularly in relation in non-binary people who don’t exist in law or reality even in Southwark.
I love the BBC. It gave me everything I have (well, them and ITN who have been amazing as well). But there is an internal civil war going on and this article tells you everything you need to know:
"... we apologise for the failures in our reporting."
https://t.co/A19fuBGoFp