Hello and a very happy new year to you all. Despite being full of cheese, barely able to rise from the chaise longue and still unsure what day it is, I’ve managed to round up a few of the good news stories from the gender beat this week. Enjoy! Westminster Won’t Wheesht
I really hope it's not just yet another Tory ploy for votes. I'm sorry, I can't vote Tory, no matter what they promise to do, and I won't vote Labour because of what they've done to women's rights.
I normally vote Labour but if they don't sort themselves out I will be voting Conservative in 2024. I don't have a problem with it though, I don't buy into the 'Never Kissed a Tory' narrative, some of the nicest people I know vote Conservative.
Yep, there are plenty of nice Tories and hateful, vile Labour supporters. We only have to look at the politicians in the Labour party to know this. I too have always voted left, but of course will be voting right until every last foul woman hating cultist has left the left wing.
If it's a choice between women being raped in NHS wards and in prisons, women having predators wipe their private parts in hospital and women being assaulted in rape shelters, plus children being sterilised and medicated and having their lives destroyed - it seems a bit mental to me to say "I'll never vote Tory". We all know the only way to rid ourselves of the evil deviants of the Labour party is now to vote Tory. It's crappy medicine but it must be swallowed.
Far better voting Tory than the complete decimation of all women's human rights and the destruction of a generation of children.
Hear hear, though at the moment....the Tories are not yet clear enough *against* this ideology.
If they have a manifesto promise to *at the very least* ensure that in law *only* sex is relevant and anything to do with gender identity is simply viewed as a "belief", then they get my vote.
I would prefer more though...
1. Laws and policies must only reference *sex* not gender identity.
2. Removal of Gender Reassignment as a Protected Characteristic (if its not a medical condition, its a "belief". If it is a medical condition, its covered under disability.).
3. Enforcement of single sex spaces in public toilets/changing areas, hospitals, schools, businesses, refuges, prisons etc. Any "mixed sex" facilities are entirely self enclosed facilities where there are *no communal areas or zones*.
4. This is a bit more controversial but go with me....
>>>"Self ID" law created<<<
a. mandates any *change of name* has to be done via deed poll (currently this is not a requirement).
b. same form could have a "gender declaration" (note: not "change of").
c. both are recorded *centrally* and linked to Birth Certificate **which cannot change at all**. Thus anyone who is checking for whatever reason can track a name back to what it was previously back to the birth certificate.
d. Official records can have a "gender marker" but the sex marker remains and **cannot be changed by law**. The sex marker will still be required on birth cert, nhs records, driving licence, passport and any other relevant official documentation.
e. Individual when signing does so in the *knowledge* that their sex is not changed and remains as it was, that there is NO requirement for *anyone* (known or unknow to individual/businesses/colleagues/family/official bodies etc) to refer to the individual with wrong sexed or made up "pronouns". That if the individual is found to be accessing spaces/services/support etc for the opposite sex, they will face criminal charges of fraud. That a person's previous name nor their sex can be kept private. (note: witness protection programmes would not be subject to the centralised publicly available record...it would be "locked" as it currently is).
This would then cover the identity fraud issues we ARE seeing with name changes. Putting "gender" in as well makes perfect sense and gives the demanding narcissists what they want...sort of.
But I doubt this would happen (anyone know how this idea even be given to someone who could maybe use it?)
You're in the same position as I and many others are in. I have no intention of voting for any of the main parties. The Women's Equality Party are a fucking distasteful joke. It needs to be renamed.
Many of us feel this way, Amber, politically lost. I fear that Tories WILL stay in power, despite the horrific damage they've done to the UK, because they will push and push now for Women's Rights, to protect women and girls, getting the entire nightmare out there in all the papers, whilst Starmer will carry on with his Trans Insanity. The next election is going to wake a LOT of people up, very fast.
60% of Scots don’t want self ID, yet misogynistic transmaiden Sturgeon and the hateful SNP, Greens and Labour svoted it through. Labour voted it through even though the amendment that Labour voted for wasn’t in, they still voted it through. Good to see two Labour women voted against it.
That poll is such great news! I also loved the spelling bee bit :D Thanks JL and Happy New Year to you, Moley, Glinner and all the Terfs at The Glinner Update.
They were asked to spell "woman" and the kid asked the judges to define the word. They were unable to provide a definition but could use it in a few sentences. The kid spelt woman but got it wrong as he did not spell it with an "x" and was called a hateful bigot by the judge.
That's exactly how you spell it! A fine Neapolitan delicacy to be sure. But I'm not overly fond of the ricotta filling. Indeed, despite having both French and Italian blood, I'm not keen on anything sweet for breakfast - I keep my pastries in reserve until the afternoon!
The 2004 GRA is now defunct and has been overtaken by other specific legislation - same sex marriage, etc. It is eminently possible to make gaining a GRC less embarrassing for 'trans' people without destroying statistics, without referring to male crimes as female crimes, without allowing any man access to female spaces, rights, jobs, hospital wards, etc. Create third spaces, conjoined - one for 'trans' women and one for 'trans' men.
Ensure, through legislation, that a GRC can be used for only very specific reasons, and that the state is entitled to keep all birth records, offence records according to sex, and these may be referred in the event of any wrong-doing or stepping over boundaries. If the 'trans' lobby screams, "discrimination" and/or "exclusion", then it should have thought about the consequences of its ludicrous demands on others, and how others were likely to react. They cannot expect sympathy from those they are quite happy to trample underfoot.
All the UK government needs to do is strengthen, or, preferably, repeal, the 2010 EA and replace it with female-specific legislation that protects females across the board at every level. The ramifications and implications of self-ID, if, as in Scotland, it means that 'trans' identified males become women legally and for all purposes, every protected characteristic apart from gender reassignment falls, all legislation introduced to end discrimination against females falls and all female protecting legislation falls.
Only an exceptionally stupid person would imagine that males will not take advantage. We see them behaving exactly like men under the cover of a frock and lippy even now, before it has been introduced. No, self-ID comes in, it will become very much worse because these deviants will take that as a green light to visit upon all females the very worst traits of masculinity, particularly sexual masculinity and dehumanising of females masculinity.
1. Laws and policies must only reference *sex* not gender identity.
2. Removal of Gender Reassignment as a Protected Characteristic (if its not a medical condition, its a "belief". If it is a medical condition, its covered under disability.).
3. Enforcement of single sex spaces in public toilets/changing areas, hospitals, schools, businesses, refuges, prisons etc. Any "mixed sex" facilities are entirely self enclosed facilities where there are *no communal areas or zones*.
4. This is a bit more controversial but go with me....
>>>"Self ID" law created<<<
a. mandates any *change of name* has to be done via deed poll (currently this is not a requirement).
b. same form could have a "gender declaration" (note: not "change of").
c. both are recorded *centrally* and linked to Birth Certificate **which cannot change at all**. Thus anyone who is checking for whatever reason can track a name back to what it was previously back to the birth certificate.
d. Official records can have a "gender marker" but the sex marker remains and **cannot be changed by law**. The sex marker will still be required on birth cert, nhs records, driving licence, passport and any other relevant official documentation.
e. Individual when signing does so in the *knowledge* that their sex is not changed and remains as it was, that there is NO requirement for *anyone* (known or unknow to individual/businesses/colleagues/family/official bodies etc) to refer to the individual with wrong sexed or made up "pronouns". That if the individual is found to be accessing spaces/services/support etc for the opposite sex, they will face criminal charges of fraud. That a person's previous name nor their sex can be kept private. (note: witness protection programmes would not be subject to the centralised publicly available record...it would be "locked" as it currently is).
This would then cover the identity fraud issues we ARE seeing with name changes. Putting "gender" in as well makes perfect sense and gives the demanding narcissists what they want...sort of.
But I doubt this would happen (anyone know how this idea even be given to someone who could maybe use it?)
Thank you for this much needed good news post. It is much appreciated.
The Babylon Bee have really been on fire with the woke mob proving to this old leftie that the right can be very funny too especially when I see how SNL are going the way of Disney MCU in quality and popularity.
Haha! A cheese longue would be my ideal piece of furniture! (And yes you're right! I was in a total cheese coma last new years, too. I so often am...) x
Unless I'm seriously mistaken, I thought that Theresa May was advocating for something similar to what Sturgeon currently is. She spoke at some Pink News event, and if it got them whooping we can assume her proposal wasn't modest or reasonable. She wanted people to be given the right to self identify as the gender/sex they preferred without a medical diagnosis of dysphoria or further medical intervention.
I don't recall her refering to any concerns she had about the consequences it could have for kids. So why is she concerned now? Well, she isn't, it's just things have changed and she's in a very different position. She's also a liar.
She may have been taken with the idea at the outset but the consultation stage revealed the flaws. Sturgeon had a consultation designed to avoid scrutiny. And objections were overridden.
May was lobbied by Stonewall etc who convinced her that no one’s rights would be affected, self ID was just a rubber stamp, they lied to her. Maybe she’s wised up since.
Yes, maybe, but in her position she shouldn't have been so clueless or seen to be. Plenty of politicians are, obviously, it's why they have people far better informed and cleverer than they are working for them.
you might have hit the nail on the head there- 'people.... working for them...' there seems to be a young generation of 'policy advisors' (incl 'diversity experts', etc) who are probably explaining trans issues in a false and deceptive way- and the older professional politicians just accept the bullshit unthinkingly
In terms of the more junior staff MPs have, researchers and so on, that is definitely a factor. They are going to leave the MP with the impression that the values and opinions they have are shared widespread. Too many politicians are lazy narcissists, they want to be successful but they don't want to work hard enough for it or pay attention.
What an interesting thread. May has been doing a few U-turns of late. And lobbying really is everywhere. I have been accused of being both a lobbyist and a SPAD.
It always unnerved me to be asked 'my' position (read my/the senior's) on pretty much anything and the problem with how this works at the moment is you have to be 'seen' to 'have a position' ('official' or otherwise) so your reliable staff have to prepare you for, or to respond to, anything. How are they 'preparing' those 'positions'?
I once found a friend's name on a very glossy report in my field. And laughed out loud at how seriously it was being taken. Whizzy stats. A launch event. The right sponsors and forward blurb. Their budget was 100 times what ours was. Young (ish) 'researchers' create these policies with no knowledge at all about the subjects they write about. It's all interchangeable. Subject specialists get pissed off at how many resources SPADs get. I've written a few reports and statements. Then been alarmed at what traction they've got and been quoted back at me.
I can imagine how many meetings they have, how part of the fabric of policy delivery they are, so any Stonewall type suggestion was nodded through and rubber stamped (as Mark says above). To counter May's awful history at the Home Office, some nice cuddly, progressive 'rights' junk to pretend you are nice really.
May seemed to rise to a position then claim she hadn't quite realised what she was overseeing. She then has since been openly countering what she saw as subsequent excesses. It must all jar with her 'idea' of herself as a nice, tolerant, fair Christian.
I have no issue with politicians doing so called "u turns" if the evidence shows that their previous position was wrong.
I think media poking fun when Ministers change their mind on something really doesn't help future ministers from "changing their mind" when its really needed, for fear of being lampooned for doing so. Of course, the argument is that the ministers really do need to grow a backbone/thicker skin but still, its really difficult to change when the media is sniffing blood.
Thank you, JL. Your good news always lifts the spirits. Also this week, Dutch abandon the (affirmation only) Dutch protocol and Switzerland says no to non-binary.
That poll gives me so much hope - 95% of the respondents do not want self ID!!! Happy New Year to me! 2023 is gonna be the year the TERFS win!
It is pretty impressive. I know it's the Daily Express but still, what a percentage.
I really hope so 🙏🏼
I really hope it's not just yet another Tory ploy for votes. I'm sorry, I can't vote Tory, no matter what they promise to do, and I won't vote Labour because of what they've done to women's rights.
I normally vote Labour but if they don't sort themselves out I will be voting Conservative in 2024. I don't have a problem with it though, I don't buy into the 'Never Kissed a Tory' narrative, some of the nicest people I know vote Conservative.
Yep, there are plenty of nice Tories and hateful, vile Labour supporters. We only have to look at the politicians in the Labour party to know this. I too have always voted left, but of course will be voting right until every last foul woman hating cultist has left the left wing.
If it's a choice between women being raped in NHS wards and in prisons, women having predators wipe their private parts in hospital and women being assaulted in rape shelters, plus children being sterilised and medicated and having their lives destroyed - it seems a bit mental to me to say "I'll never vote Tory". We all know the only way to rid ourselves of the evil deviants of the Labour party is now to vote Tory. It's crappy medicine but it must be swallowed.
Far better voting Tory than the complete decimation of all women's human rights and the destruction of a generation of children.
Well put, Kate, that's a very convincing argument. Can't disagree with a word of it.
I have voted SNP for decades but while the current regime and the poisonous thinking is in place I could not possibly vote for them.
Hear hear, though at the moment....the Tories are not yet clear enough *against* this ideology.
If they have a manifesto promise to *at the very least* ensure that in law *only* sex is relevant and anything to do with gender identity is simply viewed as a "belief", then they get my vote.
I would prefer more though...
1. Laws and policies must only reference *sex* not gender identity.
2. Removal of Gender Reassignment as a Protected Characteristic (if its not a medical condition, its a "belief". If it is a medical condition, its covered under disability.).
3. Enforcement of single sex spaces in public toilets/changing areas, hospitals, schools, businesses, refuges, prisons etc. Any "mixed sex" facilities are entirely self enclosed facilities where there are *no communal areas or zones*.
4. This is a bit more controversial but go with me....
>>>"Self ID" law created<<<
a. mandates any *change of name* has to be done via deed poll (currently this is not a requirement).
b. same form could have a "gender declaration" (note: not "change of").
c. both are recorded *centrally* and linked to Birth Certificate **which cannot change at all**. Thus anyone who is checking for whatever reason can track a name back to what it was previously back to the birth certificate.
d. Official records can have a "gender marker" but the sex marker remains and **cannot be changed by law**. The sex marker will still be required on birth cert, nhs records, driving licence, passport and any other relevant official documentation.
e. Individual when signing does so in the *knowledge* that their sex is not changed and remains as it was, that there is NO requirement for *anyone* (known or unknow to individual/businesses/colleagues/family/official bodies etc) to refer to the individual with wrong sexed or made up "pronouns". That if the individual is found to be accessing spaces/services/support etc for the opposite sex, they will face criminal charges of fraud. That a person's previous name nor their sex can be kept private. (note: witness protection programmes would not be subject to the centralised publicly available record...it would be "locked" as it currently is).
This would then cover the identity fraud issues we ARE seeing with name changes. Putting "gender" in as well makes perfect sense and gives the demanding narcissists what they want...sort of.
But I doubt this would happen (anyone know how this idea even be given to someone who could maybe use it?)
You're in the same position as I and many others are in. I have no intention of voting for any of the main parties. The Women's Equality Party are a fucking distasteful joke. It needs to be renamed.
Many of us feel this way, Amber, politically lost. I fear that Tories WILL stay in power, despite the horrific damage they've done to the UK, because they will push and push now for Women's Rights, to protect women and girls, getting the entire nightmare out there in all the papers, whilst Starmer will carry on with his Trans Insanity. The next election is going to wake a LOT of people up, very fast.
60% of Scots don’t want self ID, yet misogynistic transmaiden Sturgeon and the hateful SNP, Greens and Labour svoted it through. Labour voted it through even though the amendment that Labour voted for wasn’t in, they still voted it through. Good to see two Labour women voted against it.
If you gave me a nickel for every intelligent, well informed politician I'd still be broke.
Snap, in fact I’d be in overdraft
More like 83%. It really isn't popular.
That poll is such great news! I also loved the spelling bee bit :D Thanks JL and Happy New Year to you, Moley, Glinner and all the Terfs at The Glinner Update.
Thank you, BlackieKat! Very best wishes x
I'm blocked on Twitter, what happened in the Spelling Bee.
They were asked to spell "woman" and the kid asked the judges to define the word. They were unable to provide a definition but could use it in a few sentences. The kid spelt woman but got it wrong as he did not spell it with an "x" and was called a hateful bigot by the judge.
Bastards
It's satire, but it is so hard to tell it from reality these days!
And the first comment was from Musk -- two emojis laughing so hard they were crying.
Ah
I would almost acquaisent my Twitter account to see this one. Almost.
You can catch many of the Babylon Bee satirical videos on You Tube here's the link to this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mnQTzhVgl8
Remember this lovely story?
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/something-beautiful
Well Fred has received the memorabilia!
Happy new year one and all , may we be free of ‘we just want to pee ‘ in 2023
Thanks JL
Thank you so much for cheering me up with this. The version of Auld Lang Syne was touching and the spelling bee made me laugh out loud.
Glad to hear it! Keep smiling, Helen! x
We were singing that outside the Scottish Parliament and I ended up on the BBC news. A friend in Cornwall told me- we got good coverage 👌
Good on you! But the BBC showed such heresy?!? Which regions? Just in Cornwall, or...?
IIRC when the first big women's Holyrood demo happened the BBC chose to ignore it?
Totally o/t but I’m laughing my little cottons off here
I asked my little petal what she would like for breakfast tomorrow and she said chocolate pain
Yes my little darling you can have pain au chocolat
Dead posh us in Cowdenbeath ye Ken 😂
Oooh can't beat a chocolate pain for breakfast! Give little petal my very best wishes xx
I love pain au chocolat, but Italian sfogliatelle (I probably spelled it wrong!) are even better!
That's exactly how you spell it! A fine Neapolitan delicacy to be sure. But I'm not overly fond of the ricotta filling. Indeed, despite having both French and Italian blood, I'm not keen on anything sweet for breakfast - I keep my pastries in reserve until the afternoon!
I will
The 2004 GRA is now defunct and has been overtaken by other specific legislation - same sex marriage, etc. It is eminently possible to make gaining a GRC less embarrassing for 'trans' people without destroying statistics, without referring to male crimes as female crimes, without allowing any man access to female spaces, rights, jobs, hospital wards, etc. Create third spaces, conjoined - one for 'trans' women and one for 'trans' men.
Ensure, through legislation, that a GRC can be used for only very specific reasons, and that the state is entitled to keep all birth records, offence records according to sex, and these may be referred in the event of any wrong-doing or stepping over boundaries. If the 'trans' lobby screams, "discrimination" and/or "exclusion", then it should have thought about the consequences of its ludicrous demands on others, and how others were likely to react. They cannot expect sympathy from those they are quite happy to trample underfoot.
All the UK government needs to do is strengthen, or, preferably, repeal, the 2010 EA and replace it with female-specific legislation that protects females across the board at every level. The ramifications and implications of self-ID, if, as in Scotland, it means that 'trans' identified males become women legally and for all purposes, every protected characteristic apart from gender reassignment falls, all legislation introduced to end discrimination against females falls and all female protecting legislation falls.
Only an exceptionally stupid person would imagine that males will not take advantage. We see them behaving exactly like men under the cover of a frock and lippy even now, before it has been introduced. No, self-ID comes in, it will become very much worse because these deviants will take that as a green light to visit upon all females the very worst traits of masculinity, particularly sexual masculinity and dehumanising of females masculinity.
This is what I would want to see...
1. Laws and policies must only reference *sex* not gender identity.
2. Removal of Gender Reassignment as a Protected Characteristic (if its not a medical condition, its a "belief". If it is a medical condition, its covered under disability.).
3. Enforcement of single sex spaces in public toilets/changing areas, hospitals, schools, businesses, refuges, prisons etc. Any "mixed sex" facilities are entirely self enclosed facilities where there are *no communal areas or zones*.
4. This is a bit more controversial but go with me....
>>>"Self ID" law created<<<
a. mandates any *change of name* has to be done via deed poll (currently this is not a requirement).
b. same form could have a "gender declaration" (note: not "change of").
c. both are recorded *centrally* and linked to Birth Certificate **which cannot change at all**. Thus anyone who is checking for whatever reason can track a name back to what it was previously back to the birth certificate.
d. Official records can have a "gender marker" but the sex marker remains and **cannot be changed by law**. The sex marker will still be required on birth cert, nhs records, driving licence, passport and any other relevant official documentation.
e. Individual when signing does so in the *knowledge* that their sex is not changed and remains as it was, that there is NO requirement for *anyone* (known or unknow to individual/businesses/colleagues/family/official bodies etc) to refer to the individual with wrong sexed or made up "pronouns". That if the individual is found to be accessing spaces/services/support etc for the opposite sex, they will face criminal charges of fraud. That a person's previous name nor their sex can be kept private. (note: witness protection programmes would not be subject to the centralised publicly available record...it would be "locked" as it currently is).
This would then cover the identity fraud issues we ARE seeing with name changes. Putting "gender" in as well makes perfect sense and gives the demanding narcissists what they want...sort of.
But I doubt this would happen (anyone know how this idea even be given to someone who could maybe use it?)
Hi Felicity: we think along similar lines. If we can think this out, why couldn't the people who are paid to do it?
Happy New Year to you too, JL.
Thank you for this much needed good news post. It is much appreciated.
The Babylon Bee have really been on fire with the woke mob proving to this old leftie that the right can be very funny too especially when I see how SNL are going the way of Disney MCU in quality and popularity.
I like your The lady’s not affirming JL, made me giggle. thanks as always happy new year.
Haha! Huge thanks, CB! I'm glad someone got the joke! x
On the excellent subject of cheese, JL (continued from last year iirc, for which thanks), it sounds like yours may be a cheese longue?
Haha! A cheese longue would be my ideal piece of furniture! (And yes you're right! I was in a total cheese coma last new years, too. I so often am...) x
My coma of choice, as well. Thank you for bringing cheese to this table... x
Unless I'm seriously mistaken, I thought that Theresa May was advocating for something similar to what Sturgeon currently is. She spoke at some Pink News event, and if it got them whooping we can assume her proposal wasn't modest or reasonable. She wanted people to be given the right to self identify as the gender/sex they preferred without a medical diagnosis of dysphoria or further medical intervention.
I don't recall her refering to any concerns she had about the consequences it could have for kids. So why is she concerned now? Well, she isn't, it's just things have changed and she's in a very different position. She's also a liar.
She may have been taken with the idea at the outset but the consultation stage revealed the flaws. Sturgeon had a consultation designed to avoid scrutiny. And objections were overridden.
May was lobbied by Stonewall etc who convinced her that no one’s rights would be affected, self ID was just a rubber stamp, they lied to her. Maybe she’s wised up since.
Yes, maybe, but in her position she shouldn't have been so clueless or seen to be. Plenty of politicians are, obviously, it's why they have people far better informed and cleverer than they are working for them.
you might have hit the nail on the head there- 'people.... working for them...' there seems to be a young generation of 'policy advisors' (incl 'diversity experts', etc) who are probably explaining trans issues in a false and deceptive way- and the older professional politicians just accept the bullshit unthinkingly
In terms of the more junior staff MPs have, researchers and so on, that is definitely a factor. They are going to leave the MP with the impression that the values and opinions they have are shared widespread. Too many politicians are lazy narcissists, they want to be successful but they don't want to work hard enough for it or pay attention.
What an interesting thread. May has been doing a few U-turns of late. And lobbying really is everywhere. I have been accused of being both a lobbyist and a SPAD.
It always unnerved me to be asked 'my' position (read my/the senior's) on pretty much anything and the problem with how this works at the moment is you have to be 'seen' to 'have a position' ('official' or otherwise) so your reliable staff have to prepare you for, or to respond to, anything. How are they 'preparing' those 'positions'?
I once found a friend's name on a very glossy report in my field. And laughed out loud at how seriously it was being taken. Whizzy stats. A launch event. The right sponsors and forward blurb. Their budget was 100 times what ours was. Young (ish) 'researchers' create these policies with no knowledge at all about the subjects they write about. It's all interchangeable. Subject specialists get pissed off at how many resources SPADs get. I've written a few reports and statements. Then been alarmed at what traction they've got and been quoted back at me.
I can imagine how many meetings they have, how part of the fabric of policy delivery they are, so any Stonewall type suggestion was nodded through and rubber stamped (as Mark says above). To counter May's awful history at the Home Office, some nice cuddly, progressive 'rights' junk to pretend you are nice really.
May seemed to rise to a position then claim she hadn't quite realised what she was overseeing. She then has since been openly countering what she saw as subsequent excesses. It must all jar with her 'idea' of herself as a nice, tolerant, fair Christian.
I have no issue with politicians doing so called "u turns" if the evidence shows that their previous position was wrong.
I think media poking fun when Ministers change their mind on something really doesn't help future ministers from "changing their mind" when its really needed, for fear of being lampooned for doing so. Of course, the argument is that the ministers really do need to grow a backbone/thicker skin but still, its really difficult to change when the media is sniffing blood.
Thank you, JL. Your good news always lifts the spirits. Also this week, Dutch abandon the (affirmation only) Dutch protocol and Switzerland says no to non-binary.
Good for Iain McWhirter and for the Times making that article free to view.
Thank you so much for these much needed pieces of good news JL.
Thanks so much for your support, Nick!
Good news, but the education sector at every level is still pumping out this nonsense. I'll vote for the party that gets to grips with that.
Too right!
Happy New Year everyone- keep up the fight in 2023. Support Scotland in getting the dreadful Bill binned.