Concerned Person
@concerned-person.bsky.social
"Her views on gender". Her views on Gender are akin to Nazism. She should have been gone back in 2019 when she signed the Nazi Womens Declaration.
Pretty sure that this signature alone is enough to argue she does not hold a protected belief.
Pretty sure that this signature alone is enough to argue she does not hold a protected belief.
November 30, 2025 at 12:04 PM
"Her views on gender". Her views on Gender are akin to Nazism. She should have been gone back in 2019 when she signed the Nazi Womens Declaration.
Pretty sure that this signature alone is enough to argue she does not hold a protected belief.
Pretty sure that this signature alone is enough to argue she does not hold a protected belief.
Reeves last year: "Fuck off you poor starving kids".
Reeves today: image + alt text
What's changed? She certainly hasn't grown a conscience. And the reality is, the other raises, or freezes will likely offset the measly child benefit, which is what makes her such a huge spiteful fascist bigot.
Reeves today: image + alt text
What's changed? She certainly hasn't grown a conscience. And the reality is, the other raises, or freezes will likely offset the measly child benefit, which is what makes her such a huge spiteful fascist bigot.
November 26, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Reeves last year: "Fuck off you poor starving kids".
Reeves today: image + alt text
What's changed? She certainly hasn't grown a conscience. And the reality is, the other raises, or freezes will likely offset the measly child benefit, which is what makes her such a huge spiteful fascist bigot.
Reeves today: image + alt text
What's changed? She certainly hasn't grown a conscience. And the reality is, the other raises, or freezes will likely offset the measly child benefit, which is what makes her such a huge spiteful fascist bigot.
@zohrankmamdani.bsky.social - this is just awfully. This tells me you would have shook hands with Hitler. I can never forgive you. Words mean nothing with actions like these.
November 23, 2025 at 12:17 AM
@zohrankmamdani.bsky.social - this is just awfully. This tells me you would have shook hands with Hitler. I can never forgive you. Words mean nothing with actions like these.
Oh and perhaps that discrimination on grounds of GR is discrimination on sex (P v S)
Which also means the Pool case was wrongly decided, because even if sex discrimination was not pleased, it is sex discrimination.
Which also means the Pool case was wrongly decided, because even if sex discrimination was not pleased, it is sex discrimination.
November 21, 2025 at 11:11 PM
Oh and perhaps that discrimination on grounds of GR is discrimination on sex (P v S)
Which also means the Pool case was wrongly decided, because even if sex discrimination was not pleased, it is sex discrimination.
Which also means the Pool case was wrongly decided, because even if sex discrimination was not pleased, it is sex discrimination.
The bloody Supreme Court deliberately and intentionally tried to argue that in enacting EA 2010 there was a deviation from SDA.
But as I keep saying, the non regression clause means that it was impossible to reduce rights in EA 2010.
And Hansard shows they were aware of that.
But as I keep saying, the non regression clause means that it was impossible to reduce rights in EA 2010.
And Hansard shows they were aware of that.
November 21, 2025 at 11:11 PM
The bloody Supreme Court deliberately and intentionally tried to argue that in enacting EA 2010 there was a deviation from SDA.
But as I keep saying, the non regression clause means that it was impossible to reduce rights in EA 2010.
And Hansard shows they were aware of that.
But as I keep saying, the non regression clause means that it was impossible to reduce rights in EA 2010.
And Hansard shows they were aware of that.
@goodlawproject.org @goodlawproject.bsky.social - sorry to do this on main again, but you are not responsive elsewhere.
In your submissions for tomorrow, you refer to CoP and guidance post EA2010, but also to Croft which is pre EA2010. Do not forget that as far back as 2005, Dti said the same thing
In your submissions for tomorrow, you refer to CoP and guidance post EA2010, but also to Croft which is pre EA2010. Do not forget that as far back as 2005, Dti said the same thing
November 11, 2025 at 4:05 PM
@goodlawproject.org @goodlawproject.bsky.social - sorry to do this on main again, but you are not responsive elsewhere.
In your submissions for tomorrow, you refer to CoP and guidance post EA2010, but also to Croft which is pre EA2010. Do not forget that as far back as 2005, Dti said the same thing
In your submissions for tomorrow, you refer to CoP and guidance post EA2010, but also to Croft which is pre EA2010. Do not forget that as far back as 2005, Dti said the same thing
The Barrister that wrote this for the EHRC is a cretin:
You can't try and fool the Court and refer to it as a "News Item" and then say "publishing the *guidance* was compliant with the duty in s3 and advanced the matters in s. 8 and 9 [of EA2006]
It was fucking guidance. Not a news item.
You can't try and fool the Court and refer to it as a "News Item" and then say "publishing the *guidance* was compliant with the duty in s3 and advanced the matters in s. 8 and 9 [of EA2006]
It was fucking guidance. Not a news item.
November 10, 2025 at 7:49 PM
The Barrister that wrote this for the EHRC is a cretin:
You can't try and fool the Court and refer to it as a "News Item" and then say "publishing the *guidance* was compliant with the duty in s3 and advanced the matters in s. 8 and 9 [of EA2006]
It was fucking guidance. Not a news item.
You can't try and fool the Court and refer to it as a "News Item" and then say "publishing the *guidance* was compliant with the duty in s3 and advanced the matters in s. 8 and 9 [of EA2006]
It was fucking guidance. Not a news item.
This is an extremely dangerous piece of work demonstrating absolute incompetence or a naivety beyond words.
It is precisely because we are part of the convention we hold those rights. To leave puts us at the mercy of the govt of the day. Scary shit.
It is precisely because we are part of the convention we hold those rights. To leave puts us at the mercy of the govt of the day. Scary shit.
November 10, 2025 at 1:32 PM
This is an extremely dangerous piece of work demonstrating absolute incompetence or a naivety beyond words.
It is precisely because we are part of the convention we hold those rights. To leave puts us at the mercy of the govt of the day. Scary shit.
It is precisely because we are part of the convention we hold those rights. To leave puts us at the mercy of the govt of the day. Scary shit.
The article's back up. It's been changed which is prob. why the first was removed
Rather than saying they were "considering their position", it now states that they will argue that even the alleged concession is wrong; ie it appears as though they're continuing the case
Thanks @goodlawproject.org
Rather than saying they were "considering their position", it now states that they will argue that even the alleged concession is wrong; ie it appears as though they're continuing the case
Thanks @goodlawproject.org
November 6, 2025 at 6:06 PM
The article's back up. It's been changed which is prob. why the first was removed
Rather than saying they were "considering their position", it now states that they will argue that even the alleged concession is wrong; ie it appears as though they're continuing the case
Thanks @goodlawproject.org
Rather than saying they were "considering their position", it now states that they will argue that even the alleged concession is wrong; ie it appears as though they're continuing the case
Thanks @goodlawproject.org
@zarahsultana.bsky.social - You threw trans people under the bus for power. Shame on you. You are a disgusting Crumb Maiden.
At least you showed your true colours now. A year ago, I would have voted for you to be Prime Minister.
I was fooled, but not anymore.... Puke.
I hope you lose your seat.
At least you showed your true colours now. A year ago, I would have voted for you to be Prime Minister.
I was fooled, but not anymore.... Puke.
I hope you lose your seat.
November 4, 2025 at 5:33 PM
@zarahsultana.bsky.social - You threw trans people under the bus for power. Shame on you. You are a disgusting Crumb Maiden.
At least you showed your true colours now. A year ago, I would have voted for you to be Prime Minister.
I was fooled, but not anymore.... Puke.
I hope you lose your seat.
At least you showed your true colours now. A year ago, I would have voted for you to be Prime Minister.
I was fooled, but not anymore.... Puke.
I hope you lose your seat.
I did it myself, not through a website. Here is a screenshot of the response from middle October and the first page of the actual policy:
November 4, 2025 at 5:01 PM
I did it myself, not through a website. Here is a screenshot of the response from middle October and the first page of the actual policy:
Democracy is a myth. Look at America. Look at how Fascism took hold in the 1930's.
Look at P v S (1996). The government's position at the EHRC was that dismissing a trans woman was not sex discrimination.
If we had the EHRC then, they would have a CoP saying you can dismiss a a trans woman legally
Look at P v S (1996). The government's position at the EHRC was that dismissing a trans woman was not sex discrimination.
If we had the EHRC then, they would have a CoP saying you can dismiss a a trans woman legally
November 2, 2025 at 11:09 PM
Democracy is a myth. Look at America. Look at how Fascism took hold in the 1930's.
Look at P v S (1996). The government's position at the EHRC was that dismissing a trans woman was not sex discrimination.
If we had the EHRC then, they would have a CoP saying you can dismiss a a trans woman legally
Look at P v S (1996). The government's position at the EHRC was that dismissing a trans woman was not sex discrimination.
If we had the EHRC then, they would have a CoP saying you can dismiss a a trans woman legally
The "guidance" isn't, but the CoP is defacto law. Its pretty hard to convince a Judge to go against the provisions of a Statutory CoP. The current CoP is entrenched in Tribunals
The interim "guidance" which has been withdrawn has zero legal status but I suspect it will be in the Upton ET judgment
The interim "guidance" which has been withdrawn has zero legal status but I suspect it will be in the Upton ET judgment
November 2, 2025 at 10:33 PM
The "guidance" isn't, but the CoP is defacto law. Its pretty hard to convince a Judge to go against the provisions of a Statutory CoP. The current CoP is entrenched in Tribunals
The interim "guidance" which has been withdrawn has zero legal status but I suspect it will be in the Upton ET judgment
The interim "guidance" which has been withdrawn has zero legal status but I suspect it will be in the Upton ET judgment
#1/3
So I was looking again at the Equality Act 2006 and it seems to me we are missing something.
Once the EHRC has submitted a draft to the SoS, she has but two options. 1) approve it and lay a copy; or 2) *give written reasons* why she does not approve it.
So I was looking again at the Equality Act 2006 and it seems to me we are missing something.
Once the EHRC has submitted a draft to the SoS, she has but two options. 1) approve it and lay a copy; or 2) *give written reasons* why she does not approve it.
November 2, 2025 at 3:14 PM
#1/3
So I was looking again at the Equality Act 2006 and it seems to me we are missing something.
Once the EHRC has submitted a draft to the SoS, she has but two options. 1) approve it and lay a copy; or 2) *give written reasons* why she does not approve it.
So I was looking again at the Equality Act 2006 and it seems to me we are missing something.
Once the EHRC has submitted a draft to the SoS, she has but two options. 1) approve it and lay a copy; or 2) *give written reasons* why she does not approve it.
#6/6
I find this very suspicious:
Given they allegedly consulted internally and externally, how the fuck could they not hold any formal or informal meeting notes or discussions !
@tacc.org.uk
I find this very suspicious:
Given they allegedly consulted internally and externally, how the fuck could they not hold any formal or informal meeting notes or discussions !
@tacc.org.uk
October 27, 2025 at 4:54 PM
#6/6
I find this very suspicious:
Given they allegedly consulted internally and externally, how the fuck could they not hold any formal or informal meeting notes or discussions !
@tacc.org.uk
I find this very suspicious:
Given they allegedly consulted internally and externally, how the fuck could they not hold any formal or informal meeting notes or discussions !
@tacc.org.uk
#5/6
Here is the full official guidance:
Here is the full official guidance:
October 27, 2025 at 4:54 PM
#5/6
Here is the full official guidance:
Here is the full official guidance:
#4/6
Assistant Chief Constable is talking a crock of shit:
Assistant Chief Constable is talking a crock of shit:
October 27, 2025 at 4:54 PM
#4/6
Assistant Chief Constable is talking a crock of shit:
Assistant Chief Constable is talking a crock of shit:
A thread
#1/6
So Police Scotland Interim Guidance seem to think that the SC Judgment impacts toilets
So says their anti trans Consultant Jane Gordon.
What absolute and utter bollocks.
@goodlawproject.org - this needs to be JR'd. It was published on 8th August, so not long to do this.
#1/6
So Police Scotland Interim Guidance seem to think that the SC Judgment impacts toilets
So says their anti trans Consultant Jane Gordon.
What absolute and utter bollocks.
@goodlawproject.org - this needs to be JR'd. It was published on 8th August, so not long to do this.
October 27, 2025 at 4:54 PM
A thread
#1/6
So Police Scotland Interim Guidance seem to think that the SC Judgment impacts toilets
So says their anti trans Consultant Jane Gordon.
What absolute and utter bollocks.
@goodlawproject.org - this needs to be JR'd. It was published on 8th August, so not long to do this.
#1/6
So Police Scotland Interim Guidance seem to think that the SC Judgment impacts toilets
So says their anti trans Consultant Jane Gordon.
What absolute and utter bollocks.
@goodlawproject.org - this needs to be JR'd. It was published on 8th August, so not long to do this.
@zarahsultana.bsky.social - You fascist CrumbMaiden
To think I wanted you as PM and now you are calling a fascist anti trans bigot your "comrade".
Fuck you. I hope you lose your seat.
To think I wanted you as PM and now you are calling a fascist anti trans bigot your "comrade".
Fuck you. I hope you lose your seat.
October 25, 2025 at 3:21 PM
@zarahsultana.bsky.social - You fascist CrumbMaiden
To think I wanted you as PM and now you are calling a fascist anti trans bigot your "comrade".
Fuck you. I hope you lose your seat.
To think I wanted you as PM and now you are calling a fascist anti trans bigot your "comrade".
Fuck you. I hope you lose your seat.
This view is confusing. It looks like LD on 27%. This is a better screen grab:
October 14, 2025 at 3:44 PM
This view is confusing. It looks like LD on 27%. This is a better screen grab:
ffs.
"I'm not transphobic, I just think trans people don't exist...and even though they don't exist, I still I go around guessing who might be trans and calling them men.."
Why the fuck has the company not argued she has no protected belief. Its quite clear this is akin to Nazism.
"I'm not transphobic, I just think trans people don't exist...and even though they don't exist, I still I go around guessing who might be trans and calling them men.."
Why the fuck has the company not argued she has no protected belief. Its quite clear this is akin to Nazism.
October 2, 2025 at 4:57 PM
ffs.
"I'm not transphobic, I just think trans people don't exist...and even though they don't exist, I still I go around guessing who might be trans and calling them men.."
Why the fuck has the company not argued she has no protected belief. Its quite clear this is akin to Nazism.
"I'm not transphobic, I just think trans people don't exist...and even though they don't exist, I still I go around guessing who might be trans and calling them men.."
Why the fuck has the company not argued she has no protected belief. Its quite clear this is akin to Nazism.
This is the biggest crock of shit ever.
October 2, 2025 at 10:21 AM
This is the biggest crock of shit ever.
ffs,
how the hell is it levelling the playing field by targeting pensioners. Landlords, absolutely, but what utter shite this is.
We need to target rich people. Some of them are pensioners, but the majority are not.
We level the playing field by taxing the rich and forcing rent controls
how the hell is it levelling the playing field by targeting pensioners. Landlords, absolutely, but what utter shite this is.
We need to target rich people. Some of them are pensioners, but the majority are not.
We level the playing field by taxing the rich and forcing rent controls
September 23, 2025 at 3:20 PM
ffs,
how the hell is it levelling the playing field by targeting pensioners. Landlords, absolutely, but what utter shite this is.
We need to target rich people. Some of them are pensioners, but the majority are not.
We level the playing field by taxing the rich and forcing rent controls
how the hell is it levelling the playing field by targeting pensioners. Landlords, absolutely, but what utter shite this is.
We need to target rich people. Some of them are pensioners, but the majority are not.
We level the playing field by taxing the rich and forcing rent controls
Who the fuck are those Crumb Maidens legitimising the hatred of Streeting. They need to be removed from any position of leadership if they are from "trans" organisations/
September 21, 2025 at 9:59 AM
Who the fuck are those Crumb Maidens legitimising the hatred of Streeting. They need to be removed from any position of leadership if they are from "trans" organisations/
That Lib Dem Councillor is a bit thick. "We had a Democratic vote and decided not to include this resolution, but we cannot debate it because we're not mature enough".
ffs, Parliament does this every fucking day. It's not no debate, it's democracy in action. It is the epitome of maturity
ffs, Parliament does this every fucking day. It's not no debate, it's democracy in action. It is the epitome of maturity
September 20, 2025 at 11:08 AM
That Lib Dem Councillor is a bit thick. "We had a Democratic vote and decided not to include this resolution, but we cannot debate it because we're not mature enough".
ffs, Parliament does this every fucking day. It's not no debate, it's democracy in action. It is the epitome of maturity
ffs, Parliament does this every fucking day. It's not no debate, it's democracy in action. It is the epitome of maturity