But government think they are too young to gamble because they aren't mature enough, or sensibly use a sunbed. No botherQuote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
Not old enough to sensibly be on a jury, adult
Printable View
But government think they are too young to gamble because they aren't mature enough, or sensibly use a sunbed. No botherQuote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
Not old enough to sensibly be on a jury, adult
"I think the people of this country have had enough of experts" - Graeme Logan (AKA Michael Gove)Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
You can put 50 bona fide experts that will disagree on both sides of most debates. Pick an expert, quote him her, prove your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Look at the two from the un that were opposite sides on this debate
The law is all over the place here, also in Scotland you were supposed to have a Named Person until you were 18 as you were not mature enough to basically look after yourself. Also in Scotland we made a decision to urge court's not to send under 25s to prison as their brains were not mature enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
It seems all over the place and probably the same across the UK.
Agree, that's excellent what N. Zealand are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
I agree they should aim to reduce smoking but prohibition is a terrible idea. Never worked for alcohol. Doesn’t work for drugs. Complete gift to organised crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's a gradual reduction approach so worth trying imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and a Kings Council lawyer explains why this is not an "attack on democracy". A S35 is part of the devolution settlement, how can it be anti democratic when it's democracy in action as it's part of the Scotland Act. If a S35 is being used inappropriately then the courts will intervene.
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1...7kE79IL9g&s=19
Oh, and the SNP voted for the current devolution settlement.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MalcolmCh...58579715465218
Malcolm chisholm argues section 35 was integral to Donald dewars vision.
Equality isn't devolved. They say it doesn't effect it. Scottish government said in court the bill impacts the Equality Act ‘for all purposes'.
It's basically a legal case now, we'll see who is correct. The former Advocate General for Scotland and a constitutional law expert believes section 35 is correct
https://policyexchange.org.uk/public...n-reform-bill/
Tories seem to be debating the merits of the bill already passed in the Scottish parliament in the UK parliament? I thought this was a legal objection?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/st...LezQPzAT_IhN4A
Well done Joanna Cherry
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you agree it needs fixed? Why did they vote on a broken Bill then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
No, I just agree that it is a matter for the Scottish parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Alistair Jack failing to give the reasons for his section 35, and disrespecting the UK parliament. He'll publish a statement of reasons later today.
It's surely already within the gift of the Scottish Parliament to fix it, make some amendments and everyone is happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It doesn’t need fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not aware of anyone arguing against doing the right thing for trans rights, but when the means of trying to so clearly impact adversely on women's rights (and open up potentially dangerous avenues for children) that can't be the right thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
While those flaws within the legislation have generated plenty of heat, they're not what's at the heart of the government's decision to block it. It's a simple legal issue, whereby the bill clearly impacts on the Equality Act. A 'constitutional outrage' it is not. The SG have simply been badly advised if they felt this legislation would go unchallenged.
You applaud Cherry (someone you usually scorn) when she says the bill needs fixed in Scotland but then claim it doesn't need fixed. How does that work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Really, perhaps you will be able to say that to any victims assaulted by a predator. There has to be some sort of checks and balances written in to the Act, which most agree is a good idea for the Trans community, just poorly executed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
So why did you applaud Joanne Cherry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Is he still here. I thought he was moving to England because he was getting taxed too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
The MOU in 2012 on the Scotland act signed by all parties agreed that a section 35 is a last resort and shouldn't be used.
I suppose it's like the Sewell convention which is disregarded when the UK parliament want to.
Because she disagrees with the content of the bill but respects the right of Holyrood to pass it.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
See that polis in London who has just admitted to being a predator who assaulted multiple women multiple times. What did he identify as? I would suggest that, based on just news reports, that someone identifying as a policeman is more dangerous by to women than someone trans identifying as a woman. How do those checks and balances work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Good post.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I noticed however, post didn't get much traction. Probably because 12 years ago they weren't bothered. Two pages on, we've still got people talking about toilets.
From the Guardian:
Sounds like Alister's razor sharp mind is right on top of his brief as usual. :wink:Quote:
Ben Bradshaw (Lab) says Jack in his statement did not give a clear explanation as to why the Scottish bill undermines the Equality Act. It is not enough for Jack to say he will publish something. Can he explain it now? And what will the government do about foreign nationals who come to the UK from countries that have a form of self-recognition.
On the latter point, Jack says the equalities minister has done a written statement on this.
Jack says the statement of reasons explains how the Scottish bill would impact on two UK laws. He does not want to “bore everyone to death” by going through those reasons now, he says.
The 'nothing has changed' mantra brings to mind Theresa May...and I don't see how anyone can claim that a bill which removes all safeguards when it comes to a male being recognised as a woman in law changes nothing. Were this bill to become law a man who says he is a woman literally is one in every sense. The 'living in your acquired gender' stipulation is meaningless as no Scottish government minister has been able to say what this actually means. Couple that with the serious concerns around children being able to change their legal sex and it's pretty clear why there's such strong opposition to a bill with such potentially dangerous implications.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
She said it needs fixed in Scotland which suggests it was broken. Holyrood can still pass it with some amendments from what I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Not disagreeing, the beast needs punished and should have been caught and charged years ago. However case of a trans woman here in Fife attacking little girls in supermarket toilets… not one size fits all, but obviously, imho prevention is better than a cure.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
Yep almost all sex attacks are committed by men. That's why I believe biological women should have safe spaces, particularly shelters and rape crisis ect.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
No, it just means that she doesn't agree with all of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310