News Round-Up
- “‘We won’t stop pro-trans plotters’” – Keir Starmer has refused to stop a plot by ministers to thwart last week’s Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not legally women, reports the Telegraph.
- “Labour must not undermine the Supreme Court’s trans judgment” – Trans people who want to get on quietly with their lives must be appalled by the poison being spread in their name, says the Telegraph in a leading article.
- “A trans-activist temper tantrum” – Saturday’s London trans demo was a carnival of misogyny and public urination, writes Jo Bartosch in Spiked.
- “Trans NHS patients can access every women-only space in London” – All NHS hospitals in London are refusing to comply with single-sex laws to stop transgender people using women-only spaces, reveals the Telegraph.
- “The tide has not turned against woke. The backlash is the mirror of what it dislikes” – The kind of people who make a point of calling the Tory leader Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke are louder and more visible than ever, warns Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph, taking aim at the woke Right.
- “Reform would now beat Labour to be largest party” – A new poll suggests that if an election were to be held today, Reform UK would be on track to win the most seats, with no party achieving a clear majority, according to Wales Online.
- “It’s going wrong for the Right in the Anglosphere” – What is it about English speaking Conservatives in Britain, Canada and Australia that appears to render them incapable of running competent election campaigns? wonders Iain Dale in the Telegraph.
- “Over £10 million handed to prison guards after violent inmate attacks” – Around 202 injured prison officers have received payouts from the Ministry of Justice since 2019/20, averaging £51,000 per person, reports the Mail.
- “Shameless Chinese firms advertise ‘inflatable boats for refugees’” – Chinese companies have been openly selling “inflatable boats for refugees” online and advertising them directly to people smugglers, says GB News.
- “Thug who beat man with cricket stump cannot be deported as he’s ‘not a threat’” – A thug who drove 100 miles to beat a man with a cricket stump cannot be deported as a judge ruled he is not a threat to the public, reports the Sun.
- “ECHR has veered into politics, warns leading UK judge” – Lord Burnett warns that the European Court of Human Rights is overstepping its role, with human rights laws increasingly used to block UK deportations, according to the Telegraph.
- “We don’t know if non-crime hate incidents help fight crime, police admit” – Police forces admit that they don’t know if non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) help tackle crime, reveals the Telegraph, having done little or no research on the subject.
- “Two-tier policing row over Palestine march during Passover” – Essex Police has been accused of a “disastrous failure” and “two-tier policing” after allowing a pro-Palestinian march to proceed through a Jewish area in Southend during Passover, reports the Telegraph.
- “On Israel, the BBC seems incapable of getting the simplest thing right” – The BBC has been mistranslating Yahud – the Arabic word for Jew – as Israeli for many years, writes Danny Cohen in the Telegraph.
- “BBC drama has become pure liberal-elite poison” – BBC television has ceased to be relevant to its customers, says Simon Heffer in the Telegraph. If the licence fee is abolished in 2027, it will not be a second too soon.
- “Labour seems to be forgetting Britain is still a Christian country” – Our liberal elites seem willing to celebrate every culture other than our own, writes Robert Jenrick in the Telegraph.
- “Don’t turn Renaud Camus into a martyr” – The British state’s ban on the ‘great replacement’ philosopher has backfired, says Fraser Myers in Spiked.
- “Miliband in blistering attack on Farage’s UK Net Zero ‘nonsense and lies’” – Ed Miliband has torn into Nigel Farage and the Tories for peddling dangerous “nonsense and lies” by suggesting the UK’s Net Zero target is responsible for destroying lots of Britain’s businesses, reports the Guardian.
- “The great Hornsea Project Three cover-up” – Hornsea Project Three, an offshore windfarm, has been awarded extra contracts at higher prices than allowed under AR6, prompting serious concerns over transparency and accountability, warns David Turver on his Eigen Values Substack.
- ‘Analysis of ‘renewable’ power Germany – the UK – France in the European context: 2024’ – Europe’s push for weather-dependent ‘renewables’ is a costly and inefficient gamble, with productivity plummeting and costs soaring, writes Ed Hoskins on his blog.
- “Analysis of the approved raft of the Pandemic Treaty” – The WHO’s Pandemic Treaty is vague, non-binding and leaves little of substance for nations to object to, says Dr Meryl Nass on her Substack – what a relief!
- ‘Trump proposes massive NIH budget cut and reorganisation’ – Will a Republican-led Congress really support Trump’s proposed 44% decrease for the world’s largest medical research funder? wonders Meredith Wadman in Science.
- “‘‘Woke’ is the best thing that has happened to me’” – In the Telegraph, Mick Brown talks to comedian and former king of prime-time Jim Davidson about racism, Russell Brand and how the woke culture that once ruined him became his salvation.
- ‘Panic glutton’ – In Takimag, Theodore Dalrymple considers the preparation required for various potential crises and disasters.
- ‘What really makes us British?’ – There is more to our national identity than warm beer and fish and chips, says Sam Bidwell in the Critic.
- “Does it not occur to them why sex is a protected characteristic?” – Connie Shaw on GB News expresses her astonishment at young women who describe themselves as feminists not understanding why it’s in their interests to champion the Supreme Court judgement on the Equality Act.
If you have any tips for inclusion in the round-up, email us here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“‘We won’t stop pro-trans plotters’” – Keir Starmer has refused to stop a plot by ministers to thwart last week’s Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not legally women, reports the Telegraph.
No deader giveaway of the infantilisation of politics than politicians’ pandering to pork dressed up as mutton (and vice-versa), obsessive fretting over toiletting arrangements in public buildings convenient for a vast majority of people since time immemorial, and forcing adult neuroses on primary school children through state-sponsored deviancy such as Stonewall.
We might as well be governed by the Lord of the Flies.
This is funny because it’s true. It does make you wonder how men who hate women must view their mothers. Not with a great deal of respect, I’d imagine;
https://x.com/ladymysticalwmn/status/1913240217814810797
Interesting perspective;
https://x.com/alexrubner/status/1913901550675624288
In my limited experience (IMLI?) most transvestites have ‘complex’ relationships with their mothers (ie couldnt stand them). Grayson Perry being a case in point who’s mother was a ghastly narcissist. Barry Humphries also had an overbearing mother.
But going full surgical on yourself..
I’ll boost IMLI
Playing devil’s advocate here, (now, I welcome an outburst of common sense from the judiciary and 100%support women’s rights jk rowling and everything and find the concept of naked guys in girls’ changing rooms abhorrent) BUT these are not decisions that should be taken by the courts, parliament is supreme and we should be lamenting the fact that so few of our MPs seem to know or care what a woman is. There is even a minister for safeguarding women, who doesn’t seem to have been particularly outspoken on this or any other important question.
Why has no MP brought a private member’s bill on this question?
Why isn’t this now a manifesto issue?
Cos they’re frit of the trannie vote, they’re frit of the Pakistani rape gang vote, what are those useless wastes of oxygen actually good for?
The judges were called upon to determine how the law as written applied to a particular case, which then sets a precedent. Is that not their job? I’m not clear what you think Parliament should have done – other than perhaps drafting the law more carefully.
Not so.
The courts were called upon to decide the meaning of an Act of Parliament which the wokerati wanted to mean something different from plain English. It is the court’s job to decide such conflicts.
In this case Parliament had been clear in the legislation. Too often it is not and that is when judicial activism takes the opportunity to impose its values on us.
Downvote from me, the MPs must not decide how to execute the actions “required” by the laws they write.
Climate Scam Runs Deep – latest leaflet to print at home, deliver to neighbours, forward to your bad MP & friends online. Start a local campaign. Deliver 100 leaflets a week (5200 a year). Over 300 leaflet ideas on the link on the leaflet.
“Does it not occur to them why sex is a protected characteristic?”
How helpful for this young lady to reinforce my point about the motivation of women fighting against trans ideology.
Trans ideology undermines their special interest group. If sex is made vague and diffuse, women can’t continue to claim to be victims of oppression – or remind everyone of past oppression – as a way of getting special privileges.
She spells it out in black and white.
Thanks for that.
You’ve evidently got quite the obsession about this topic, haven’t you stewart? Anyone would think you feel threatened by or resentment towards the opposite sex…
Can you share with the class what these ”special privileges” are, we’re supposed to want? Do you mean things like have our own private spaces so we can get changed or use the toilet knowing there won’t be men walking in and seeing us in a vulnerable state, or an expectation to compete against fellow females only in sports so that it’s a level playing field and we actually have a shot at winning something? Those sorts of ”privileges” that men still seem to be able to enjoy as they aren’t under threat?
And the only ”oppression” I see, as a woman, is that coming from the trans agenda and anyone supportive of it.
No obsession at all. I just think feminism is divisive (by definition), like pretty much every special interest group, and I find amusing the way the trans movement has exposed the inherent contradiction, I might go as far as to say deceit, in the feminist movement. The pursuit of so called “equality” is no such thing at all. The moment the concept of equality between sexes has been taken to its full logical consequences, the ones who have fought back hardest and with great success have been feminists.- supposedly the champions of equality of the sexes. The things you list are indeed privileges and, as I’ve posted elsewhere, ones I consider very reasonable and support. But then again I don’t believe in ludicrous notions of equality. Here’s another hypocrisy which my pointing out will likely also trigger you. The same people who stand steadfastly in defence of women only sports (and quite rightly so) sadly many of them don’t seem to believe (without even realising it) in men’s only sports. Take mens’ football. The push to insert women in every possible aspect of mens football – be it as referees, commentators, interviewers, part of the technical staff – has been… Read more »
I’ve never heard a misogynist admit they’re a misogynist once, such is their lack of self-awareness, yet they demonstrate it constantly and consistently in their behaviour, and you outed yourself as one years ago. The only person being ‘triggered’ here is you, again and again and again…but that’s projection for you.
Your example of men’s football is lame, very lame, unless we’ve had a FtM player on a men’s team I didn’t know about? So how is a female ref or commentator supposed to be a ”Gotcha” moment in demonstrating hypocrisy, exactly? Men’s sport is still 100% male competitors, as far as I can see. You’re going to have to come up with something better than that.
Since when has having private spaces so that men and women can use separate facilities been classed as a privilege? Since time immemorial there’s been male and female toilets, changing rooms, and later, sports. What rational people call a basic right you call a privilege. Says it all, really.
You know who else claim not to be misogynists? People who aren’t misogynists. 🙂 Claiming what are essentially privileges as rights is the scam used by interest groups everywhere. And almost always in the name of equality or fairness. It bamboozles most people, including you, it would seem. The whole DEI movement is shrouded in the rhetoric of fairness, equality and rights, but clearly is about obtaining favour for certain groups of people. Since when has having private spaces so that men and women can use separate facilities been classed as a privilege? Well, since the moment that there is nothing in the natural order of things that distinguishes places where males do their toilet things and women do their toilet things. Evidence of this abounds. In nature for starters. Also in small restaurants that have only one toilet. Airplanes, trains, small offices, pretty much every household on the planet. The creation of personal hygiene spaces for women only is something that requires resources that someone has to pay for. So not a right but a privilege. And one I repeat I’m not against. Since time immemorial there’s been male and female toilets, changing rooms, and later, sports. So? Doesn’t… Read more »
I wonder why women didn’t just use the men’s toilets in Victorian Britain, because that’s all that were available…Any man stating this is somehow a ‘privilege’ as opposed to a basic ( equal ) right is showing their true colours, as you have done time and time again with your posts illustrating your hostile attitude towards women over the years. I shouldn’t worry, though. You’ve got the numbers, after all; ”We take single-sex public toilets for granted today. It is hard to believe that when public conveniences were first constructed, the vast majority of these toilets were just for men. In Victorian Britain, most public toilets were designed for men. Of course, this affected women’s ability to leave the home, as women who wished to travel had to plan their route to include areas where they could relieve themselves. Thus, women never travelled much further than where family and friends resided. This is often called the ‘urinary leash’, as women could only go so far as their bladders would allow them. This lack of access to toilets impeded women’s access to public spaces as there were no women’s toilets in the work place or anywhere else in public. This led… Read more »
This is the usual end point of any discussion about “womens’ rights” that goes on for long enough. Once it is clear that women have exactly the same rights as men and for quite some time and once it is established that most of what women are pushing for at this point are privileges and special treatment, then you get one or more of the following. 1. Historical grievance mining, as in,well it might not be happening now but in the past… You’ve gone back to the Victorian times. Well done. 2. Grievances from other parts of the world. Women in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan are a popular go to. As if what women experience in those places says anything at all about their experiences in western countries. 3. Ad hominems. Basically personal insults. Like “you’re a misogynist”. You’ve hit two out of three of the bingo. Well done. The actual egalitarian solution to women not being able to use mens’ toilets is men and women using the same toilets. Which actually happens a lot. But I’m not a radical egalitarian. Nor do I think women should be made to pee on the streets, in case that wasn’t clear already.… Read more »
But where are women claiming to be oppressed? This was your original assertion. Yes, women have had equal rights for donkey’s years. Same as gays, other religions, ethnicities etc. Nobody sane would dispute that. The same as no rational person would dispute the fact the trans ideology is a threat to women’s sex-based rights. The only one harbouring a grievance mentality is you, because once again you project your feelings of “woe is me” and being so hard done by onto the opposite sex, accusing us of what you yourself are demonstrating with your posts on the regular. Facts piss you off, don’t they? Such as most violent crimes are carried out by men, including violence against women. But your response is “So? Look at me! Am I not the victim of psychological abuse by women?” How many men’s refuges exist for victims of ‘domestic psychological abuse’ perpetrated by women compared to women’s refuges for victims of domestic abuse at the hands of men? Your default position of playing the victim because women are always somehow the villains in your narrative, no matter the scenario, speaks volumes. Anybody thinking women’s toilets are in any way a privilege just illustrates my… Read more »
But where are women claiming to be oppressed? Certainly not me. I’m actually always pretty much saying women are NOT oppressed. The same as no rational person would dispute the fact the trans ideology is a threat to women’s sex-based rights. You’re going to have to help me out with this one. What are “women’s sex-based rights” and why are they under threat from the trans? Honest questions. Facts piss you off, don’t they? Such as most violent crimes are carried out by men, including violence against women. I don’t know, maybe there are facts that do piss me off, but certainly not that one. That is true, men do commit most violent crimes. Here are two facts that may piss YOU off. One. Most violent crimes are against men, not women. But for some reason, the ones against women seem to be more important. Not sure why. All violent crimes are awful. Two. The reason it is men and not women that commit most violent crimes is because abortion isn’t a crime in most places. If abortion were a crime, then women would commit 70 million murders a year, far in excess of murders perpetrated by men. Well, maybe… Read more »
You have zero ability to introspect, therefore I would never expect somebody such as yourself to admit to hating women. Your inability to admit what is an undeniable fact is hardly surprising. And sorry not sorry to disappoint but nothing you say pisses me off because nothing you say ever surprises me. It’s as predictable as it is tedious. If I were so hyper-sensitive to words on a screen do you honestly think I’d still be commenting on here for nigh on four years? I couldn’t care less how many members the resident Misogynist Society have, here I am, come get me. ”The reason it is men and not women that commit most violent crimes is because abortion isn’t a crime in most places. If abortion were a crime, then women would commit 70 million murders a year, far in excess of murders perpetrated by men.” Scraping the barrel there, aren’t we? And what did I say about you always painting women as the villains? Nothing ”skewed” in that observation, evidently. But I can never have my assessment of you confirmed enough times, so there we go. And everyone knows most violent crimes are committed *against* men *by* men. This… Read more »
I normally agree with most of what you write, but on football Stewart, and for that matter Joey Barton, is correct. I am fed up with women commentators replacing former successful male footballers who added something with their reminiscences. I have nothing against womens’ football, but those involved in it are trying to piggy back on mens football to get the financial benefits which womens football otherwise cannot get by itself. BBC may well be pushing it because that is all it can afford
Oh is this the part where the men go ‘off context’ when they’ve got nothing in the bag? I think it was rather obvious to all with eyes the topic is men *competing in* women’s sports. I’m fairly confident female athletes aren’t remotely concerned about the likes of Steve Cram or Colin Jackson commentating on their races. Had Colin or Steve identified as women back in the day, though, and wished to compete in the female category, well, that’s a whole different story ( and context ).
But do show me where male competitors are under threat in any sport from women larping as men. As far as I’m aware, they’re winning medals/trophies just like they always have, because their sporting opportunities are not being stolen from them by imposters of the opposite sex.
You’re missing the point completely. Men spoil women’s sport if they participate pretending to be women because of the unfair advantage they typically have in those instances. But the point being made is that women spoil men’s sports too, just in different ways. One is in the way that has been pointed out to you, by getting involved as for example commentators or as refs in a way that is contrived and adds nothing. In fact, in some cases it spoils it. It displaces a man who is probably preferred by most men and would have more interesting things to say. Another way that women spoil men’s sports is by trying to participate with men. This happens more and more in schools where boys and girls are shoved together. Boys are forced to let girls in in their games, to be more inclusive, and it spoils it for boys because the girls are more often than not not up to it, take away the competitiveness and generally spoil it. The question I have for you is this: do you have a problem with men not wanting women to participate in their sports in any capacity – not as competitors, not… Read more »
On the contrary. It was me in my original post making the point about women’s sport staying exclusively female so that it is a level playing field, and therefore fair for all competitors, ensuring only girls/women can win. As usual, you use the tired old tactic of deflection to go off on a tangent about women commentators and referees, when clearly this has no connection to the original point. This is a strategy routinely used by people who have no comeback, they know it, and they need to get more supporters behind them. E.g; ”The same people who stand steadfastly in defence of women only sports (and quite rightly so) sadly many of them don’t seem to believe (without even realising it) in men’s only sports.” I repeat, men’s sports, as far as I’m aware, have all remained 100% male as regards competitors, and are not under threat at all from imposters of the opposite sex. So in what way is this illustrating hypocrisy? You’re incapable of comparing like with like. Having a woman comment on men’s football hardly impacts the play or prospects of those men playing, in the same way a man commenting on female sports doesn’t affect… Read more »
You missed the point again, or perhaps just avoided it.
Men’s sport is spoiled by women’s participation but in different ways to how women’s sports is spoiled by men’s participation.
Women’s sport is spoiled by men’s participation because women can’t compete against men (on the whole).
Mens’ sport is spoiled by women’s participation because women aren’t as good as men (on the whole) and so ruin the competitiveness and the general experience. Playing, officiating, commenting all of it. That’s what most men think even though they may be too cowed by society to admit it openly.
Why don’t you answer my question. Do you object to men wanting to keep their sports only for men, all aspects of it, because they otherwise feel it ruins it?
I didn’t miss your point at all. The fact is, I’m the only one sticking to the original point. Interestingly, there are loads of sports ( some of which I mentioned above ) where both men and women commentate on them when they’re televised. As I’ve already stated ( or are you being deliberately obtuse? ), how knowledgeable and engaging one is has nothing to do with what sex they are, and these are qualities that should be prioritized before personal preference, but everybody is entitled to their opinions. I just never hear any women whining about men commentating on their sports, which is telling. ”Mens’ sport is spoiled by women’s participation because women aren’t as good as men (on the whole) and so ruin the competitiveness and the general experience. Playing, officiating, commenting all of it. That’s what most men think even though they may be too cowed by society to admit it openly.” This is all personal opinion and you don’t get to speak for all men, however, your misogynistic attitude towards us means that you require back-up and so you need this to be true in order to add weight to your argument. Personally, I have literally… Read more »
Oh well, this was a bit of a waste of time. I’ve tried to engage with you on the substance. I’ve asked you a number of questions in absolute good faith, based on comments you’ve made genuinely trying to get an informative response and you’ve ignored them. You just make statements of assumptions about the way I am and my motivations which you clearly know nothing about. And in every post you hurl insult after insult, as if ad hominems were some kind of legitimate argument. Why can’t you just have a civil discussion on a topic? Why do you immediately have to assume the other person has bad intentions because they’re writing something you don’t agree with? Someone tells you they prefer former players as pundits rather than women who have no experience of football at the highest level and you call them misogynists too. No doubt the response to this will be more ad hominems, probably something about hurt feelings, bruised ego, basically anything but addressing the substance of what is otherwise a pretty interesting and current issue. Come on, just chill a bit or just avoid the discussion if it doesn’t interest you. But enough with the… Read more »
You asked me this; ”The question I have for you is this: do you have a problem with men not wanting women to participate in their sports in any capacity – not as competitors, not as pundits, not as officials?” I answered this; ”Personally, I have literally zero interest in who commentates on sports that I don’t watch.” Because I literally have no opinion on sports that I don’t watch and so couldn’t care less who’s commentating. ”You just make statements of assumptions about the way I am and my motivations which you clearly know nothing about.” I’ve been reading your misogynist drivel for four years now, you and others on here, so to say I ”know nothing” is a far cry from the reality as I’ve had the measure of you for a long time. You and your ilk. But of course it’s time to go into default ‘victim mode’ and paint me as the ‘angry and aggressive’ woman ( yawn ), I’m more than familiar with your behaviour by now. All you do is whinge about women and how hard done by you men are, and so you do come across as a seriously wet blanket, that’s for… Read more »
Same goes for cricket – I want to hear the insights of a pundit who has played at the highest level of the men’s game, not at the playing-level of a local club’s Under-16 team playing T20 on a midweek evening.
All about celebrating sporting excellence (and nothing to do with misogyny).
I’m not on board with Stewart on the toilets are privileges topic.
But I have to agree on sports. I can’t stand when Maggie Alfonsi commentates in men’s Rugby Union. She has nothing interesting to say and uses superlatives like she’s swallowed a dictionary.
Women’s Rugby is fine, but to me it’s unexciting and doesn’t survive without subsidy from the men’s game.
TOILETS
Surely, the order of events is from one unisex toilet to two separate male & female toilets. Theory would say this is a privilege to all. In actually it is a privilege for women as they don’t have to experience the poor toilet etiquette of the average male. Sadly the privilege is missing for the males as the one male toilet is still poorly used because of the poor average toilet etiquette of males.
It is not until the introduction of the multiple toilets for males that the urinal can appear. This is truly when privilege is visited on the males who would like to use hygienic toilets when sharing with the poor average toilet etiquette of the male.
I don’t have an opinion on the privilege or otherwise of having separate M/F toilets. I do think this particular thread has become a bit too focused on minutiae. Stewart and Mogwai both made some valid, and some invalid, points but a clearly antagonistic conversation has no likely conclusion.
so not much North sea oil and gas? says in so Guardian article. How do we know if we do not look?
The media were keen to publish forecasts about when the world would run out of oil. They turned out to be no better than the “End of the Earth” forecasts by the chap in Oxford Street.
Not only does the left want it to be true but they cannot conceive that more technical innovation may yield more oil or that price changes make oil fields viable which were not before.
‘Far-right’, ‘climate-denier’, ‘anti-vaxxer’, and my personal favourite, ‘misogynist’. All now utterly meaningless words. Let’s be clear about something: the Trans lot are not misogynists; they’re mentally ill people that are a literal manifestation of decades of feminist BS that has asserted loudly and proudly that men should be like women. That the world would be a perfect place if only we could get rid of that vulgar thing that built the world – masculinity. There’s something darkly comical about seeing feminists splutter their flat whites back into their favourite male-tears mug when they see those tears coming from men that did what they were told and decided they should literally become women. They weren’t the tears they wanted. They wanted the male tears of through-the-roof suicides, homelessness, addiction, early death, later retirement, the removal of their children, the negative tilt of education and healthcare. They wanted those tears whilst they lobied for increasingly narcissistic demands. Not sure about the narcism? This is a group of people that can only understand something if it’s framed within the context of their own ego. It can’t be explained by decades of feminist propaganda on weak minds; no, for these people it can only… Read more »
“Miliband in blistering attack ….”
Lol. Red Ed couldn’t conduct a blistering attack on a daffodil.
Does “blistering” imply that heat was involved.
“What is it about English speaking Conservatives in Britain, Canada and Australia that appears to render them incapable of running competent election campaigns?”
Answer: they are all trying to appeal to the left because that is where they want to be on policies. I am not sure what a “Conservative” is but in the UK and Australia they are not conservative even though auto correct thinks they are the same thing.
The Pope has been recalled.
What’s brown and half-eaten?
The Pope’s Easter egg