Ben Bateson
@smallboat.bsky.social
I’ve got it on my work laptop. It’s fine.
TBH, most of my Windows history since 1995 has just been looking for the settings to revert the current version to looking as much like the old version as possible.
TBH, most of my Windows history since 1995 has just been looking for the settings to revert the current version to looking as much like the old version as possible.
May 1, 2025 at 4:16 PM
I’ve got it on my work laptop. It’s fine.
TBH, most of my Windows history since 1995 has just been looking for the settings to revert the current version to looking as much like the old version as possible.
TBH, most of my Windows history since 1995 has just been looking for the settings to revert the current version to looking as much like the old version as possible.
Aggh! It’s a nightmare. Windows 11 claims not to support my processor, so I can’t update whether I want to or not.
May 1, 2025 at 3:11 PM
Aggh! It’s a nightmare. Windows 11 claims not to support my processor, so I can’t update whether I want to or not.
Yesterday’s debate was a depressing low. Instead of focussing as legislators on how the Equality Act could be improved and updated in light of the judgment, they reduced it to a plethora of childish innuendo and meaningless cries on behalf of constituents.
April 23, 2025 at 11:16 AM
Yesterday’s debate was a depressing low. Instead of focussing as legislators on how the Equality Act could be improved and updated in light of the judgment, they reduced it to a plethora of childish innuendo and meaningless cries on behalf of constituents.
The amount of knee jerk response to this has been unbelievable. As you say, this wording is right there in paragraph 2 of the judgement.
April 21, 2025 at 7:57 PM
The amount of knee jerk response to this has been unbelievable. As you say, this wording is right there in paragraph 2 of the judgement.
“What works for us will necessarily work for the whole country”.
Hmm…I think I can see the flaw in this argument.
Hmm…I think I can see the flaw in this argument.
April 20, 2025 at 1:03 AM
“What works for us will necessarily work for the whole country”.
Hmm…I think I can see the flaw in this argument.
Hmm…I think I can see the flaw in this argument.
I think that basically puts you and I on the same footing. I respect some of the points you’ve made about legislation, but if you don’t realise that they are peppered with opinion and political agenda, then you’re not on any higher ground, I’m afraid.
April 19, 2025 at 7:52 PM
I think that basically puts you and I on the same footing. I respect some of the points you’ve made about legislation, but if you don’t realise that they are peppered with opinion and political agenda, then you’re not on any higher ground, I’m afraid.
I will concede that there are elements of opinion in with the facts. But opinions are not falsehoods, nor do your opinions act as a ‘correction’
April 19, 2025 at 7:45 PM
I will concede that there are elements of opinion in with the facts. But opinions are not falsehoods, nor do your opinions act as a ‘correction’
History is rewritten all the time.
You’ve both focussed on a little bit of grey area surrounding Scottish legislation, so it’s a stretch to say everything is factually incorrect.
You’ve both focussed on a little bit of grey area surrounding Scottish legislation, so it’s a stretch to say everything is factually incorrect.
April 19, 2025 at 7:32 PM
History is rewritten all the time.
You’ve both focussed on a little bit of grey area surrounding Scottish legislation, so it’s a stretch to say everything is factually incorrect.
You’ve both focussed on a little bit of grey area surrounding Scottish legislation, so it’s a stretch to say everything is factually incorrect.
I respect what you’re saying, despite it being a tad polemic. But you seem to be treating my post as blandly anti-trans, which it isn’t.
April 19, 2025 at 5:49 PM
I respect what you’re saying, despite it being a tad polemic. But you seem to be treating my post as blandly anti-trans, which it isn’t.
Now who’s passing misinformation?
April 19, 2025 at 5:31 PM
Now who’s passing misinformation?
If it was as unflawed as you claim, it doesn’t explain why a number of SNP members, and most of the rest of Holyrood, voted against it in the first place.
April 19, 2025 at 5:20 PM
If it was as unflawed as you claim, it doesn’t explain why a number of SNP members, and most of the rest of Holyrood, voted against it in the first place.
I don’t think it show anything of the sort. It highlights the flaws in the EA, for sure. But this doesn’t make other equally flawed legislation correct.
April 19, 2025 at 5:00 PM
I don’t think it show anything of the sort. It highlights the flaws in the EA, for sure. But this doesn’t make other equally flawed legislation correct.
I’ve re-read this thread and I see where the communication problem has entered, for which I apologise.
Somewhere around here, there was originally a post saying that although Section 35 was upheld, then the SNP continued issuing guidance in line with their ‘improved’ GRA. This somehow got omitted
Somewhere around here, there was originally a post saying that although Section 35 was upheld, then the SNP continued issuing guidance in line with their ‘improved’ GRA. This somehow got omitted
April 19, 2025 at 4:58 PM
I’ve re-read this thread and I see where the communication problem has entered, for which I apologise.
Somewhere around here, there was originally a post saying that although Section 35 was upheld, then the SNP continued issuing guidance in line with their ‘improved’ GRA. This somehow got omitted
Somewhere around here, there was originally a post saying that although Section 35 was upheld, then the SNP continued issuing guidance in line with their ‘improved’ GRA. This somehow got omitted
Also, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with Section 35. It was about guidance issued by the Scottish Fovernment in relation to their GRA
April 19, 2025 at 4:37 PM
Also, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with Section 35. It was about guidance issued by the Scottish Fovernment in relation to their GRA
This interpretation makes no sense. The Section 35 order was used to block the Scottish GRA as unlawful. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. Therefore the GRA was unlawful.
April 19, 2025 at 4:33 PM
This interpretation makes no sense. The Section 35 order was used to block the Scottish GRA as unlawful. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. Therefore the GRA was unlawful.
The Section 35 order was used to block the GRA. How on Earth can they be unconnected?
April 19, 2025 at 4:31 PM
The Section 35 order was used to block the GRA. How on Earth can they be unconnected?
‘Better’ is not a defined relationship. The judgement decided that the Scottish GRA was unlawful, that’s all. Several members of the SNP had been pointing this out all along.
April 19, 2025 at 3:51 PM
‘Better’ is not a defined relationship. The judgement decided that the Scottish GRA was unlawful, that’s all. Several members of the SNP had been pointing this out all along.
Apart from the fact that a) this omits the rest of the paragraph that totally changes the intent of the quoted passages, and b) the Supreme Court are independent of the Government, this is completely accurate.
April 19, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Apart from the fact that a) this omits the rest of the paragraph that totally changes the intent of the quoted passages, and b) the Supreme Court are independent of the Government, this is completely accurate.
“Large number of people would rather believe a local narrative than read what the Supreme Court judgement was actually about”
April 19, 2025 at 3:43 PM
“Large number of people would rather believe a local narrative than read what the Supreme Court judgement was actually about”
You realise the SNP were directly responsible for the Supreme Court having to take this decision, right?
April 19, 2025 at 3:41 PM
You realise the SNP were directly responsible for the Supreme Court having to take this decision, right?
Aye. It’s always worth remembering that all the kick-off about the Supreme Court judgement and trans rights this week is directly attributable to the SNP’s inability to engage maturely with politics.
April 19, 2025 at 3:40 PM
Aye. It’s always worth remembering that all the kick-off about the Supreme Court judgement and trans rights this week is directly attributable to the SNP’s inability to engage maturely with politics.
…so what’s the path forward? Well, updating the Equality Act would be a good first step. The present Government presumably understand all the above. They do have a lawyer in charge. Rather than exposing trans people to another round of scrutiny (which the vast majority of them don’t want)…
April 17, 2025 at 8:09 PM
…so what’s the path forward? Well, updating the Equality Act would be a good first step. The present Government presumably understand all the above. They do have a lawyer in charge. Rather than exposing trans people to another round of scrutiny (which the vast majority of them don’t want)…
So they effectively tried to sue the Government using an interpretation of the Equality Act, based on cultural language evolution. Which the Supreme Court has knocked back. Correctly in my view.
This has, of course, been hugely misrepresented by media outlets and campaigners…
This has, of course, been hugely misrepresented by media outlets and campaigners…
April 17, 2025 at 8:04 PM
So they effectively tried to sue the Government using an interpretation of the Equality Act, based on cultural language evolution. Which the Supreme Court has knocked back. Correctly in my view.
This has, of course, been hugely misrepresented by media outlets and campaigners…
This has, of course, been hugely misrepresented by media outlets and campaigners…