1) If you couldn’t ensure regular mass testing available on campus why get unis back this term, as unpalatable as not doing so would have been? Getting 100s of students to self isolate or trying to limit their movement is worse?
2) Wouldn’t it have been better to focus on distance learning for the first term/semester and give students a fee rebate for the whole of first year?
(It would require provision for young people and mature students who couldn’t live at home eg care leavers.)
This would have been really awful for a generation of young people already failed by A level saga, but is it better than having to self isolate in box rooms in halls for weeks? Feels like govt should have at least asked these qus.
But this would require a coordinated national policy response and funding for fee rebate, and there has been none from the government on universities. DFE & Gavin Williamson have been absolutely dreadful in this pandemic.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the total and utter lack of thinking about how to mitigate the impact of this pandemic on children and young people is just so utterly depressing.
This was so predictable and is so miserable for the students affected.
2. It also includes a quote supposedly from the Forstater EAT judgment that actually isn’t in the judgment. And went onto say that the Supreme Court in endorsing the Forstater judgment implicitly endorsed that nonexistent quote.
3. Its use of partial language (“assigned male at birth”, "trans female” to talk about a male doctor who identifies as trans) while also bending over backwards nog to use pronouns for the male doctor (“second respondent” appears in judgment > 1k times) is weirdly inconsistent.
The Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife judgment has landed. A partial win for Peggie but I’m not sure the ET have understood the Supreme Court judgment here and so I expect it’s very likely to be appealed. (The following is from the press summary of the judgment)
It’s hard to understand how an ET panel could arrive at the conclusion it’s lawful for a biological man to be in a female-only changing room at work post FWS. This will be v important aspect of any appeal.
📻 On @BBCr4today this morning I discussed BBC bias on gender ideology - Justin Webb sanctioned for clarifying trans women are male while the BBC misleads viewers by pretending male killers are female - and why as a friend of the BBC I want them to sort it out - listen here!
And read this excellent column for more. It’s not just people on the right who worry about the BBC’s obvious lack of impartiality - its disrespect for and bias against women opposed to men self-identifying into female-only spaces is of huge concern to feminists on the left too.
The govt has asked for an impact assessment that could take a year before it lays the statutory guidance on Equality Act/gender/sex before Parliament. But it's guidance on law *as it already stands*
Cowardly and pathetic from a govt scared to implement the law on women's rights
Claire Coutinho 100% right on this. This is Starmer/Phillipson running scared of their own backbenchers rather than prioritising women's rights to single-sex services and sports via clear guidance that explains the law *as it exists*. Utterly pathetic.
To be clear, it's 100% irrelevant whatever the EHRC regulatory impact assessment would say. It doesn't matter. The law is the law, and this is guidance to help organisations stay on right side of it. It's just the govt is too scared to back the law on women's rights. For shame.
Completely disagree on this. Grooming gangs a particular phenomenon not looked at by Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse. Louise Casey was clear on need for specific inquiry including to look at why men from some cultural backgrounds over-represented in the data. People in authority don’t need another excuse to avoid the issues including why people looked the other way for so long.
For too long “there are other types of child sexual exploitation” (yes, there are and they’re truly awful) has been used to obscure proper investigation of grooming gangs including hard look at what role cultural factors and racism played. The police still aren’t even collecting the data we need on this. Not good enough for victims.
Yes there are commonalities with all forms of child sexual abuse, which I’ve written about. But there are partic aspects of grooming gang rape and abuse that have never been confronted by national investigation and will not be without a specific focus. It would be a very serious mistake to broaden it.
Reading through the @EHRC draft changes to its statutory code that it is consulting on from today. Some helpful examples including for those who think pre pubescent boys pose a comparable risk to women’s privacy safety and dignity as grown men who identify as female (!!!)
Some more here
And some more, showing the toilet question while not the most important implication of the Supreme Court judgment really isn’t as impossible as detractors like to make out