Because this has been co-opted by the far-right and has already instigated an organised violent mob (including notorious white supremacist Tommy Robinson and leader of far-right party Reform Nigel Farage) to attack police and try to get to the murderer’s family’s home (these same groups tried to burn asylum-seekers alive a year or two ago) and the doxxing of two officers who are falsely being claimed to be the officers involved, let’s have some facts

To preface this: none of this is excusing or justifying the actions of the police. There is an investigation underway, and it’s unquestionably true that there are serious issues which need to be addressed. This is just the facts of the case, as laid out in court, by the coroner, and by the presiding judge in his summation

The police *did* check for stab wounds and when they found them they immediately uncuffed him and started administering medical help. He was cuffed for 1 minute. He was getting help 3 minutes after the police first arrived

The knife had penetrated a vein close to his lungs. There is nothing anybody could have done to save him, even if it had been an ambulance full of surgeons who had arrived instead of the police, because nobody could have found and got to the vein in time

It was dark, and he was wearing dark clothes which, coupled with the internal nature of his injuries, made it difficult to see that he had been stabbed

It is very common for someone who has been cuffed to claim to be ill or injured in order to be uncuffed and to try to escape

The murder weapon had already been removed from the scene by the time the police arrived

It was the murderer who called the police, reporting himself as the victim and his victim as the perpetrator. He had members of his family with him who backed up his side of the story

Again, this doesn’t excuse what happened or eliminate the obvious systemic failures. But before going in all guns blazing, make sure you know the full facts, and be conscious of whose narrative you may be amplifying. Also bear in mind that the family have said that they hold the murderer “100% responsible” for Nowak’s death, and that they do not want this incident to be used to spread division

Useful Idiot says what?

Que?

As the law stands at the moment, if you’re building a new non-domestic building or changing the function of an existing building and you have three toilets, each of which is a single room containing one individual toilet and a sink and which can be locked from the inside, then cannot all be accessible to everybody. One must be exclusively for women and one for men. And, as per the new guidence, which one someone can use is solely to be determined by what gender they were assigned at birth

Yes, it’s incredibly stupid, but that’s what the law currently says

I know, right? This government has chosen to go “well, if the Supreme Court says we have to discriminate against trans people, then i guess we do “, rather than ” if the law can be interpreted in that way then it’s obviously wrong or unclear. We have a large majority and a progressive core of voters, let’s change the law “

It’s like come on guys, this is exactly the strength of the UK NOT having a written constitution - you can change the law and thereby change the constitution

I’m far from an expert on this, but my understanding is that that could work, but it could also fall foul of other building regs, specifically the H&S regulations of 1992, which talk about toilets being suitable and sufficient

In my inexpert opinion it’d be enough of a grey area that you could challenge it in court if you were told it wasn’t allowed. In practical terms, no company is likely to do this unless they were specifically trying to take it to court to challenge the law or bring it more public agenda

But it’s s good idea and I’d support any company that tried it

That’s anti-trans bigotry for you

Yes, exactly

Extant businesses may. Your post mentioned planning out businesses and buildings. If there’s space for single-sex toilets then under current legislation it would be illegal not to have them. You can thank the Tories for that. Badenoch even explicitly said that it was done to target trans people, although obviously not in quite those words

Not allowed. I’ll copy from another post:

No, there’s already rules in place from the previous government which says that all new builds and buildings euch are changing their use must have separate, sex-segregated toilets, unless the building is physically too small for anything other than a single room with a single toilet and sink. You can have gender-neutral toilets as well but not instead

No, there’s already rules in place from the previous government which says that all new builds and buildings euch are changing their use must have separate, sex-segregated toilets, unless the building is physically too small for anything other than a single room with a single toilet and sink. You can have gender-neutral toilets as well but not instead

I don’t think you understand how politics works in the real world if you think that tripling your user base in two years is worse than doubling it in the same time

Your understanding of politics is shallow, simplistic, and not rooted in reality

Nah, Farage was happy. He made bank and didn’t have any responsibility to do anything. He could just peace out of the whole situation

This is less about the specifics (which you are misrepresenting and oversimplifying) and more about your hypothesis not being supported by the evidence

But WRT the specifics it is worth noting that there has also been a rise in votes for the Green Party, who have very progressive policies WRT immigration, diametrically opposed to Reform. Their vote share went from 6.4% 2 years ago to 18% 2 weeks ago

Immigration is Reform’s one issue, and also what I’ve unfailingly see Reform voters cite as their only reason for voting

Starmer has been pushing immigration as an issue and modelled the party’s policy after Reform. He even gave a speech in which he invoked the most famous anti-immigration speech in British political history. Insiders have said explicitly that the strategy was to court right-wing voters in exactly the manner that you’re suggesting

2 years ago Labour won the general election with 33.7% of the vote. 2 weeks ago they got 20% of the vote in the local elections

2 years ago Reform got 14.5% of the vote. 2 weeks ago they got 31%

This is a party who have explicitly tried the approach that you’re suggesting and it hasn’t had the effect that you think it should. Instead it has lost Labour the support of core voters and given support to Reform by legitimising and reinforcing their platform

This real-world example is the opposite of what you’re claiming would happen

And it should be obvious - “the far-right are right about immigration, therefore you should vote for us instead” is never going to be a sensible message

Prevent far-right parties getting into power by adopting far-right policies!

Let’s assume that that’s actually a moral thing to do - ask Kier Starmer what adopting exactly that strategy has done for the popularity of his party and the far-right party Reform

Yeah, as i say - i love the idea. The practical reality, at least so far, is shit. And i don’t see any way for it to get better rather than worse

Oh, plenty of what i want is gimmicky. GIVE ME A HUD!

But i can think of things like overlaying arrows on the environment when getting walking directions, setting reminders by seeing things/people, being able to fully view 3d objects when doing things like identifying something (say a flower you’ve seen) by image

I’ve been evangelising for smart glasses for years. But even if they get the functionality I’ve been hoping for I’m still not going to get them, because i don’t want every woman i meet to think I’m secretly recording her tits

There’s no way I’m letting Elon musk do brain surgery on me to harvest my thoughts

State media means that the government has editorial control, which it does not with the BBC. If they were they wouldn’t have broken stories around the Pincher scandal which was the downfall of the Johnson government, for example

And state media is funded by the state. As you correctly quoted, the BBC is funded by the public

As with your comments on the Lords, it seems like you’ve heard some reactionary soundbites and regurgitated them as fact because they fit into your world view, rather than taking the time to learn how the things you’re criticising actually work and forming your opinion from there