hypochondriac

I don't see why it's not possible for us to discuss it. As I said, many men have close female relatives or daughters so it's relevant to them as well. It's also possible to represent the views of those women in the discussion which I think both sides have done. I think the recent high court rulings have made it clear what the rules are regarding single sex spaces so even though I think there very much is a majority opinion on the matter, the courts have told us what should be happening anyway.

Can't remember the details and can't be bothered to look.

I agree we should train more of our own people. Pretty sure I read recently that a load of junior doctors trained in this country were striking because there were no jobs for them after graduating because hospitals were taking immigrants instead

They're allowing porn shoots to run after 4pm on a Sunday?

It's not just the money it's hospital appointments, availability of housing, public services etc. I accept that some people only care about money in their pocket but I personally think more care about things beyond that than we might think.

Polling indicates that immigration numbers have been one of the top issues for voters. Consecutive governments have been voted in promising to reduce immigration and have the done the opposite.

Evidence that making something socially unacceptable and clear that it's wrong will result in more people complying? I'm sure there's plenty of evidence but off the top of my head the wearing of seatbelts in cars. There's a few examples I have seen of tribunals or other incidents where men in women's changing rooms are extremely brazen and entitled about being there. Something like that should stop those at the very least but clearly the atmosphere of being unsure of what is allowed or not and being ambiguous about who is allowed in has meant that those in authority have felt unable to do anything (see the recent NHS fife tribunal for details.)

Fair enough. In fairness it's probably a bit of playing politics and a bit a reasonable point.

I don't consider it likely that Maggie Oliver has been manipulated. Even Labour ministers and backbenchers have been critical of Jess Phillips. She's temperamentally unsuited to lead this sort of thing.

A rabid response there may be but the British public have consistently voted for lower immigration for decades and the opposite has happened. I'm not surprised that many people are angry.

It's not the players we signed, it's the players we didn't sign and the positions we prioritised.

Wasn't that meant to be paul trollope?

Interesting. Looks like it's not just political opponents upset at Jess Phillips: Jess Phillips not planning to quit, I understand, but she’s still under pressure from colleagues. A minister tells me they “can’t see how Jess remains”, while a Labour backbench MP says: “I haven't seen her deliver anything apart from loud noise.”

Making it clear that biological men in women's changing rooms and toilets is socially unacceptable and unambiguously wrong will make a difference. Rather like a stop sign on a road, it won't stop all people from breaking the law but it will hugely reduce instances and problems resulting from it. The blurring of the lines is ripe for abuse. There have been a small number of instances where men are openly getting naked in spaces like changing rooms and telling women they are entitled to be there. These instances will stop.

I assume quite a few more. One of the charges is that some have links to the labour party and they are the ones attempting to widen the scope of the enquiry. Not sure how true that is.

Used unparliamentary language, was overly emotional in her responses, unprofessional, dismissive in tone and arguably accused some victims of lying. She's too emotional for this sort of role in my opinion.

Because a big part of her job is presiding over the process they are involved in that she has messed up. Her performance in the commons yesterday should have been enough to see her lose her job on its own.

Let's hear from some of the survivors. These conditions seem fair enough to me.

How would you possibly know ? I'm sure lots of biological men who believe themselves to be women are no danger to women but I'm equally sure that some are perverts who want access to women's spaces for their own pleasure. We don't know which ones are the dangerous ones so they're all banned.

That's not what I said.

Do countries not signed up to the ECHR have human rights ?

Pointing out the realistic steps a hypothetical government or country could take if they wanted to is not the same thing as advocating for those steps or even supporting that position. How is that a difficult concept for you to grasp?

I never said you did. Gassing everyone is not a serious suggestion. Leaving the ECHR is something that could feasibly happen and coukd well happen at some point in the future therefore it's worthy of discussion unlike mass murder.

I give up. You're incapable of understanding.

How is leaving the ECHR comparable to mass murder ?