@occamstazer.bsky.social
People are buying slots and then touting them out. It’s a photograph licence system FFS! Just say the only person using the slot can’t be anyone other than the provisional licence holder who booked the a lot. Simples. Make me CEO
May 4, 2025 at 5:25 PM
People are buying slots and then touting them out. It’s a photograph licence system FFS! Just say the only person using the slot can’t be anyone other than the provisional licence holder who booked the a lot. Simples. Make me CEO
Only where anyone gives a tug about regulating or enforcing regulation, or complying with regulations.
May 4, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Only where anyone gives a tug about regulating or enforcing regulation, or complying with regulations.
You’re either crazy or really really stupid. Either way you’ve set back trans acceptance by 50 years, you morons.
May 1, 2025 at 8:05 PM
You’re either crazy or really really stupid. Either way you’ve set back trans acceptance by 50 years, you morons.
Such a shock - he looked in such good shape just yesterday!
April 21, 2025 at 11:37 AM
Such a shock - he looked in such good shape just yesterday!
What they really want is this!
April 21, 2025 at 11:35 AM
What they really want is this!
You just did it but without a picture
April 21, 2025 at 11:35 AM
You just did it but without a picture
And both proved totally and utterly right. Delicious
April 18, 2025 at 3:38 AM
And both proved totally and utterly right. Delicious
A kinder, gentler politics over here on BlueSky. So enjoyable
April 17, 2025 at 4:55 AM
A kinder, gentler politics over here on BlueSky. So enjoyable
Looks like you can’t write. Your bio says “femme” so you must have included a photo of someone else?
April 17, 2025 at 4:53 AM
Looks like you can’t write. Your bio says “femme” so you must have included a photo of someone else?
Yes, on a day like today who will think of the largely straight men!
April 16, 2025 at 2:48 PM
Yes, on a day like today who will think of the largely straight men!
It did. Read the Hansard debate before the GRA 2004 was enacted. Exactly what came to pass (but then worse) came to pass, valid concerns over circular definitions were raised, clashes of rights with other groups were described. All ignored. Read it, and revise your article accordingly.
April 16, 2025 at 2:47 PM
It did. Read the Hansard debate before the GRA 2004 was enacted. Exactly what came to pass (but then worse) came to pass, valid concerns over circular definitions were raised, clashes of rights with other groups were described. All ignored. Read it, and revise your article accordingly.
His carbon footprint must be awful
April 13, 2025 at 4:55 PM
His carbon footprint must be awful
Any program which prevents any person from inclusion based on the protected characteristics listed in the Civil Rights Act 1964. See decisions of the US Supreme Court in SFA v Harvard and Muldrow v City of St Louis.
April 8, 2025 at 7:13 AM
Any program which prevents any person from inclusion based on the protected characteristics listed in the Civil Rights Act 1964. See decisions of the US Supreme Court in SFA v Harvard and Muldrow v City of St Louis.
“Should be pretty safe in Seattle”. Yeah white middle aged men are pretty much safer than every category anywhere fella
April 4, 2025 at 2:10 PM
“Should be pretty safe in Seattle”. Yeah white middle aged men are pretty much safer than every category anywhere fella
Nobody is erasing you. Even if they wanted to there isn’t a fucking rubber big enough for the job pal
April 4, 2025 at 2:09 PM
Nobody is erasing you. Even if they wanted to there isn’t a fucking rubber big enough for the job pal
Only DEI programmes which are unlawfully discriminatory aren’t allowed. Lawful ones are fine. How can anyone have a problem with that?
March 30, 2025 at 9:40 AM
Only DEI programmes which are unlawfully discriminatory aren’t allowed. Lawful ones are fine. How can anyone have a problem with that?
DEI policies are fine. Unlawful ones are not. Anyone operating a lawful DEI policy or program is fine. How is that a position which can be criticised? I mean only someone who wanted - say - introduce policies which are unlawful would have a problem with this. Oh…
March 30, 2025 at 9:39 AM
DEI policies are fine. Unlawful ones are not. Anyone operating a lawful DEI policy or program is fine. How is that a position which can be criticised? I mean only someone who wanted - say - introduce policies which are unlawful would have a problem with this. Oh…
Christ this is drivel. Why is it “unsurprising” that the University wishes to appeal? Because they lost or because they have any substantive grounds of appeal? The law on protected belief is settled, they haven’t got any grounds. What’s “unsurprising” is their willingness to piss public funds away.
March 30, 2025 at 9:36 AM
Christ this is drivel. Why is it “unsurprising” that the University wishes to appeal? Because they lost or because they have any substantive grounds of appeal? The law on protected belief is settled, they haven’t got any grounds. What’s “unsurprising” is their willingness to piss public funds away.
This case isn’t about courses is it? It’s about policy which Smita advised the University on, which was unlawful. Smita has publicly aired her misguided views on the Equality Act 2010 calling it a floor, not a ceiling, but failing to appreciate the basic fact that it balances competing rights.
March 30, 2025 at 9:34 AM
This case isn’t about courses is it? It’s about policy which Smita advised the University on, which was unlawful. Smita has publicly aired her misguided views on the Equality Act 2010 calling it a floor, not a ceiling, but failing to appreciate the basic fact that it balances competing rights.
The only logical reason nothing is done about this is most people think this category are yuppy fat cats
March 21, 2025 at 12:04 PM
The only logical reason nothing is done about this is most people think this category are yuppy fat cats
I’ll say it more bluntly that Audrey. Your legal team is shit if they have read the Judgments Audrey has shared with you and you and they still think your motion complies with the law. How many more cases like the ones which will result if your motion succeeds need to be lost by your “side”???
March 19, 2025 at 9:03 PM
I’ll say it more bluntly that Audrey. Your legal team is shit if they have read the Judgments Audrey has shared with you and you and they still think your motion complies with the law. How many more cases like the ones which will result if your motion succeeds need to be lost by your “side”???
All trans-identifying people are the sex determined at their conception. Their gender identity is entirely separate from that sex. Is that also transphobic?
March 19, 2025 at 9:00 PM
All trans-identifying people are the sex determined at their conception. Their gender identity is entirely separate from that sex. Is that also transphobic?
May I humbly suggest this thread on the topic on a message board populated by bored lawyers (on which I am a contributor)
www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/f...
www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/f...
FCA v Staley
it'll be interesting to see what the tribunal makes of the relevance of some of the cross examination I'm not sufficiently aware of the issues to have a view myself but it sounds as though his legal t...
www.rollonfriday.com
March 14, 2025 at 12:41 PM
May I humbly suggest this thread on the topic on a message board populated by bored lawyers (on which I am a contributor)
www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/f...
www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/f...
Glad to see him carving out an alternative income. Fronting The Cure is a famously short career.
March 14, 2025 at 12:39 PM
Glad to see him carving out an alternative income. Fronting The Cure is a famously short career.