To all the straight idiots doing the “happy pride month, we’re inclusive the EHRC are awful” schtick
A group of lesbians literally had to intervene in the Supreme Court to stop trans activists destroying the same sex orientation protected characteristic
You idiots
Good morning,
I hope you’re all well.
Someone gave me an idea last night & a dramatic re-enactment of recent events revolving around the Fire Brigades Union appeared!
It’s authentic & has the (now spiced up) musical interlude!
I hope it brings some much needed laughs.
Enjoy!
That, what was, the UK’s oldest working cinema AND a pub that spawned Heavy Metal, Black Sabbath & more than 650 million records sold across dozens of iconicz looks like this is civic failure of the highest (dis)regard
Birmingham deserves better. It screams a lack of self-pride
Ed Davey has written to Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson demanding she WITHDRAW official EHRC guidance protecting female-only spaces in toilets and changing rooms.
Let that land.
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission — a statutory body — has produced legally grounded guidance telling employers and public bodies that biological men should not access women’s single-sex spaces.
This is not opinion.
This is not politics.
This is the settled legal position following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the meaning of “woman” under the Equality Act.
And Ed Davey wants it gone.
His stated reason?
The guidance is not “compatible with long-standing British values.”
British values.
He used those words to argue AGAINST protecting women’s single-sex spaces.
The same Liberal Democrats who lecture the country about tolerance, inclusion and human rights are now lobbying a Labour minister to tear up statutory guidance that protects every woman in Britain who walks into a changing room, a refuge or a hospital ward.
This is not a fringe position within the Lib Dems.
Their leader wrote the letter.
The party has chosen its side.
It is not the side of women.
Repost if you think women’s single-sex spaces should be protected.
@dootdootootdoot My hefty tuxedo was thought to be male, so called BB (Big Boy). When I adopted HER, I changed her name to Bibi (meaning "lady" or "Madam" in Arabic). Now she gets called Beebles and Beeblebrox. Whatever name you choose will not necessarily be what s/he gets called 😸 x
They are not Sikhs.
These are Muslim immigrants carrying daggers in public, presumably because if the kirpan is permitted for Sikhs, they now think a blade can be justified by religion or culture too.
No.
This is exactly why religious exemptions around weapons are dangerous. Once the state accepts that one group may carry a blade because of faith, others will claim the same principle.
Britain cannot have one law for ordinary citizens and another for people who say their religion makes a weapon acceptable.
A dagger does not become harmless because it has a religious label.
Public safety must come before religious privilege.
If ordinary citizens cannot carry blades in public, nobody should be able to.
One country.
One law.
One standard.
Religious freedom means the right to believe. It does not mean the right to carry weapons on British streets.
#OneLawForAll #KnifeCrime #PublicSafety #RuleOfLaw #BritishLaw #ReligiousExemptions #ProtectThePublic #Britain
@EssexPR@benonwine@RupertLowe10
@JamesLucasIT@sueveneer Bless the Edwardian brickie who decided to lay this one (and several others on my house) facing outwards so I could appreciate it.....
You cannot hate these men enough. And those who enable them, and shut down women's extremely valid concerns, are cowardly, spineless useful idiots. I hope that one day you look back on your idiocy and pathetic cowardice and cringe forever.
The most chilling line in the Fordingbridge case isn’t about Snapchat, knives or videos – it’s this: one of the boys had a “history” of sexual offences going back to the age of ten, and the authorities knew.
In other words, the state watched a child with escalating sexual behaviour grow into a teenager who used social media to lure girls, attacked them in an underpass and a field, filmed the rapes and shared them online – and still somehow decided prison was a step too far.
If you can have a recorded history of sexual offending from primary school age and still walk out of court with 10 rape convictions and a rehabilitation order, what exactly does someone in Britain have to do to be treated as a danger rather than a “child in need of support”?
Refused service in a pub, barred from a gym or forced to leave an event because of your gender-critical views?
We have published a guide on how to take a “small claim” for belief discrimination against a service provider.
Watch @MForstater and @HJoyceGender discuss the process in our latest podcast ⤵️
Vickrum Digwa killed Henry Nowak.
He is 23.
Labour plan to give serious criminals like him lighter sentences - because of their age and identity.
Labour can’t be trusted to keep us safe. https://t.co/cmIAXN78Zq
In Derbyshire these Muslim men were caught in a sheep field with rope and plastic bags. When asked what they were doing they didn’t answer.
The Eid slaughter is about to begin. Keep your animals safe
The faces of 19 British judges.
Case after case where serious sexual offenders walked free or received shockingly lenient sentences.
Public confidence in our justice system is collapsing — victims deserve better, and the country is demanding accountability. #JusticeForWomen
As a man living in Devon I could go into the fitting rooms on the left or the right.
@marksandspencer are OK with that.
However, Mrs Higgy is only allowed in the fitting rooms on the right. But she has to share with ANY man who wants to join her.
This is simply not right. It's dangerous and unacceptable.