Did you hear about the Supreme Court ruling on FWS?

Horrible, but true.

It is a huge complication, of their own making.
They could cast him adrift; maybe they fear that would create an even worse impression - hard to imagine.
IANAL but a number of different lawyers seem confused as to how Jane Russell can represent both, now that the internal inv. has cleared SP.

As most people are now aware, NHS Fife could rest their case, call no more witnesses and allow the judges to proceed to judgement.
Why they do not do that is unclear.

From the notes of the internal investigation. It appears it was Dr Upton who was trying to smear SP by including in his complaint incidents that never happened so who can trust his word as to what happened in the changing rooms. This is truly shocking.

There must be 2 people with that name, 'cos the one that made the news this week didn't impress.

Isla Bumba "TW aren't a threat to women, except Isla Bryson".

… at what point are we going to recognise that many of these delays aren’t just long waits, they are denials of NHS care, created because politicians have intentionally undermined the NHS and enabled profit creation for major corporations?

Fight for healthcare for all. Fight for the NHS.

Do you mean "the North East" of the UK?
If you mean England, make it clear you're talking about England.

If the law hasn't changed (hint: it hasn't), then we can modify your earlier quote: "Trans men - biological women who look every inch a man - *HAVE ALWAYS HAD* to use women's spaces by law."
So where is the fault/who is at fault here?
Who was misrepresenting the law?

Sorry, rather than quoting 3rd party opinions... tell me how the law has changed.

The law hasn't changed.

You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that something was changed last week.
Nothing changed; the existing law was merely made clear, which was only necessary because so many bad actors had been deliberately spreading misinformation about what the 2010 EA said.

The fuckwits are those who voted for something they didn't understand.
As usual.

Let's be clear on what you're saying.
You say that this week's judgement: that "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act refers only and always to biological sex, and which makes no alteration to any existing law or any existing rights, is going to encourage bad men to take advantage of women-only facilities.