Trogdor

The problem with leaving the EA alone are the anomalies that exist in pregnancy, maternity, single sex services/spaces etc. Anomalies in the law are not a good thing as I mentioned an easy one is the example of a FTM trans person with a GRC who gets pregnant, as the EA is currently written they are not legally entitled to maternity leave. If its biological sex, they are protected. Now, I expect all reasonable employers wouldn't dream of doing that but all employers aren't reasonable. In principle, ambiguity in the law should be minimised as much as possible. I don't understand the argument against amending sex in the EA to biological sex. I have seen no compelling argument against it other than trans activists screaming about erasing trans people and removing their rights. Which isn't the case. The issue with gender neutral spaces is interesting, particularly your response that "some trans folks don’t like the idea" I'd guess its because they don't want to share with men either. That happens to be the issue women have as well. Predatory men are the real issue here. There are no easy answers but the level of vitriol and abuse on both sides is utterly abhorrent. Until it stops, there will be no progress.

I think that's great and I'm a supporter of making it easier for trans people to change their gender. I think gender neutral toilets are a sensible compromise. However, at the moment there is no willingness to compromise from either side. As it happens, I think the GRR was the right thing but was woefully communicated by the SG and then hijacked for a culture war which helped no-one. The reverse ferret on the prison risk assessment with Bryson effectively torpedoed the act and public opinion with it. If the EA is amended to say sex is biological sex, the Section 35 block from UK government is effectively moot and the GRR from SG would become law in my opinion. Any trans person is protected under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment within the EA whether they have a GRC or not. It is not linked to the definition of sex. If sex is to mean legal sex which is what a lot of trans activists are arguing then a trans man (FTM) with a GRC would lose protection against discrimination when they were pregnant whereas a trans man (FTM) without a GRC would retain the protection. This is why the Section 35 from the UK Government is stronger than most actually realise or are willing to accept. I would encourage everyone to read the below article. https://thecritic.co.uk/Ministers-must-grasp-the-nettle-on-equality-law/

There's an incredible amount of disinformation regarding amending the EA. The issue at the moment is the ambiguity that currently exists, does sex in the equality act mean legal sex or biological sex.

If there were a tinpot minister, it would be him.

Nothing would surprise me anymore.

Agreed, I even found myself agreeing with Adam Tomkins following a pile on, on Michael Foran (who happens to be an expert in equality law), instigated by Katy Montgomery. She is one of the very worst ideologues. She attacks, she never engages with the point she just exclaims transphobic or TERF and attacks. She even makes up quotes that she attributes to those on the opposite side. FWIW there is no moving forward if neither side will budge. Accepting one another's perspectives and trying to reach a sensible compromise is the only way forward. Forcing your views on others, whatever they are, is never a good look and rarely successful.

This is genuinely getting beyond parody. Thinking back a couple of months ago, who would have seen this coming? We live in Iannucci's world at the moment.

Agree entirely with that. He also inhereted our own contingent as well in Forrest, Crawford and McCowan (laterly) coming through to the first team. I have no doubt he made them better players. It's funny, that team of McCall's undoubtedly under achieved, especially in 2018/19 where we went through a very bad spell and Shankland was injured. Devil's advocate for a moment. Could it be the case that Bullen is actually extracting the maximum out of this squad? It just so happens that they are largely limited footballers and aren't capable of playing to the intensity we'd all like? My issue with that argument is that he's signed a lot of them on 2 year contracts (so he's happy with what he sees) and we still look better when we pass and move (playing it on the deck).

Tbf, I expect that was a dig at Itzdrk rather than yourself.

For all the chat of the league standard being worse, I've read that from fans of every club since 2018/19. Every season starts with "This is poorest standard yet, I can believe X or Y is still getting a full time gig at this level..." and yet its always competitive. Its been a long time since there has been a whipping boy like Brechin were. I think the prospect of 10 full time teams is a different one versus 8 full time teams and 2 part time teams. However, more is made of that than the gap really is. A number of part time teams are really hybrid teams. In the event that Dundee United, Dunfermline and Falkirk entered the league with Dundee, Cove & Hamilton exiting it. On paper it would be a tougher league but I have no doubt it would still be competitive with anyone capable of beating anyone else. That is the Scottish Championship for better or worse. It is always competitive.

It certainly feels like the club and the team are going through the motions at the moment. Where is the blood and thunder, the will to win? That was a huge game on Saturday. Had we won that we'd probably have top 4 secured and an outside shot at the title. You wouldn't have known it! Usually when playing into the SRE in the second half and seeking a winner we would suck the ball into the net, its hard to do that when the ball is launched into the air or when it's spending more time at the railway end. Performances are insipid which is impacting the atmosphere at home and generally sapping the fans enthusiasm. I don't blame any of the fans it really is turgid to watch. Did we have any real clear cut chances yesterday? It's not like we are creating loads of chances and missing sitters. We're relying on Dipo scoring from 30 yards or a set piece at the minute. It's what it is. Whilst our tactic remains launch it in the air for a 50/50 and win the second ball (which we seem wholly incapable of doing). It's energy sapping. I've said it before - I remain on the fence where Bullen is concerned. By the metric of points on the board, he's been an undoubted success. However, the style of football - particularly at home has been hard to watch for the vast majority of the season. It really is a derivation of what Hopkin and Duffy were doing with Dipo Akinyemi attached to it.

I was more referencing the "Remember where we were X years ago..." nature of the post I quoted. For the record - there is no argument that McCall didn't have the same financial resources as Bullen. The chairman is on record saying as much.

Hiya Uncle Ian, hiya pal.

I see the Scottish Mail on Sunday is saying Police Scotland have seized a £110,000 luxury motorhome from Peter Murrell’s 92-year-old mother’s house in Fife.

Against 10 men you keep it simple and retain possession. You don't launch it for a 50/50 and then lose the second ball. I genuinely feared we would lose that game at the end up. How McAlear remained on the park for the whole game, I'll never know. We had an overload late on and he hit the ball at the defender. When it would have been easier to find an Ayr man - there were two of them on the left hand side. He didn't even need to play the pass immediately, he could have run on. If Murdoch wasn't fit, I'd have put Smith on for McAlear, when that headbanger got sent off.

Absolutely insipid performance. Against 10 men we were woeful and playing on the break at home. WTF?

Robbie only got criticised because Uncle Ian kept playing him on the wing.

I know, I certainly wouldn't be making a donation on a site like that!!!

That's one solution to the left back problem.

Your are right but it also speaks volumes as to the relationship between the auditors (JC) and their client (SNP). They haven't cited length of association as means of parting ways, that's normally the amicable way - IE we've been your auditor for too long. Instead they went for the review of their portfolio which is clear that they have ended the agreement. I expect JC, as any external auditors would, are distancing themselves from the SNP when the police are investigating the finances of that body. It does shine a light on the external auditors too. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) will be watching the police investigation very closely and have probably been all over JC. This is exactly what it seems - a bit of face saving PR for JC. If Murrell is charged there will be a big finger pointing at JC. Restricted funds are always part of an external audit. Particularly around when they should be recognised as Income and utlimately expended. If these funds were to be ringfenced, JC should have been asking the very questions that have been asked subsequently. They could end up getting fined by the FRC.

Possibly or even the Crown Agent (given the Salmond debacle) although in this instance his line manager isn't implicated.

I don't think the question of who in the government knew what relating to this and when they knew it is a particularly objectionable one. Given it involved the party of government, it is nigh on essential in the interests of transparency. If there was no forewarning a statement from Police Scotland would suffice. In the absence of any such statement, the moonhowlers/those with axes to grind will howl about dodgy doings and foul play.