hypochondriac

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 ?

How so?

Leaving the ECHR isn't illegal.

Innocent British people who have been assaulted by some of these people are out in a lot of danger too through no fault of their own.

I won't bother responding to you on this point because you never seem to read things in context. The claim was that nothing could be done to stop the amount of people coming here illegally in small boats. That in my view is untrue. There are lots of things you could do if you wanted to including leaving the ECHR. That is not me advocating for anything, I'm simply saying that that is something which could be done as one of many measures in order to reduce numbers. You could completely disagree with the entire concept of leaving and still concede that it is an option albeit one that we don't want to take at present.

They aren't the only countries not in it but again, I'm not saying we should leave the ECHR I'm saying we could. My post was in response to a poster saying there was nothing we could do .

Right so deport those whose identities we can ascertain, put resources into finding out the true identities of others, detain those who refuse to say. Not a perfect system by any means but would see numbers fall.

I haven't said that. What I'm replying to is the idea that there is nothing we can do.

Having a more robust policy worked very well for Australia. We've never tried it so there's no evidence it wouldn't work.

It obviously is a deterrent. You talk as if all these people are fleeing for their lives. They aren't. That perception is half the problem.

Some we already know who they are, I'd be putting resources into finding out the identities of some of them. Others if they refuse to say where they're from would be detained until they talk or if we do make agreements with a third party country they can be sent there. What we definitely shouldn't do is let someone unknown roam the country because they won't tell us who they are.

What link? Have we poured resources into expanding an old army barrack in order to securely hold people whilst they are processed? Have we left the ECHR and are we looking into deporting as many people as we can and ignoring the charity and activists looking to delay and hold up flights? Hypothetically if we did that for a year and it makes no difference to numbers then I would hold my hands up and say I was wrong.