AdrianR

Wow i feel like ive just gone way back in time reading that. No backtracking at all, As I said originally all mainstream parties are behind GRA amendment. The consultation is still on track and advancing well in Scotland supported by feminist and non feminist mainstream groups alike. I don't intend to engage further with such antiquated views which clearly go against scientifically proven medical evidence and progressive societal change. Fortunately there appears more enlightened people making the important decisions which will affect lives of others.

So that even before the GRA being changed there are plenty of examples?. How therefore is the GRA proposals going to change that. You don't check now to see if that person is a woman or not. Are you suggesting that this is done in future and if so how - physical inspection?? If they are breaking the law now I don't see how this is going to stop a very very small minority continuing to do it. It certainly isn't going to encourage transgender people to do it who as you admit by the vast majority don't have nefarious intent anyway. I didn't drop anything. The point had been made and didn't need repeating. A more nuanced and detailed evidence based analysis can be found at the following: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/comment-and-opinion/the-gender-recognition-act-and-the-road-to-self-declaration/5062471.article

I am aware of the AFL case and they have agreed to take each matter on a case by case basis. Others have been rejected. Each sport should follow that approach. It is for the governing body of that sport to make their own provision and act appropriately. CAS can intervene if required for both sides. Due process in action. I am aware of the edited footage of the feminist assault and also the unedited footage plus the abuse hurled from a vocal but very very small minority on both sides of the argument on social media. Neither are representative of the vast majority. If we listened and acted on vocal small minorities then the world would be a truly screwed up place. I am also aware of many feminist groups who reject their actions and those of people you quote. All female lists under labour party protocols have been accepted as trans inclusive contrary to an attempt to otherwise stop this. Any convicted felon will have to deal with the law be it as now or as amended if such a transfer is to take place. its called due process. Under the current act he wont get there and even the new proposals will have safeguards. I await details of the "numerous examples" as you quote and details of the convictions / arrest numbers for these people instead of hyperbole. It appears those countries who have passed self identification have not had these problems and if you are intent on invading women's spaces for nefarious means, (1) you can do so now with the appropriate preparation (2) amendments to the GRA wont change that or encourage it or stop it. It will as evidence from other countries has shown make not the blindest bit of difference if someone is so minded. They do it now and will do it then. However it will substantially relieve the burden on the NHS and assist those of the absolute vast majority without nefarious intent to live as they believe they should.

Been a while since I posted on here but I have to respond to the frankly ridiculous last comment regarding the GRA proposed amendments which are: Removing the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being able to apply for gender recognition. The current need to be assessed and diagnosed by clinicians is seen as an intrusive requirement by the trans community Proposing options for reducing the length and intrusiveness of the gender recognition system. Ironically it will reduce the reliance on the "beleaguered NHS" as significant time and effort (psychologists costs are roughly £3k per session including reports) by simplifying a cumbersome and outdated process. As for the so called "charter" strange how countries who have already introduced it many years ago (our near neighbour Eire being one) have had no such problems and quite frankly to link a recognised medical condition to some sort of nefarious conduct is ludicrous. The changes to the GRA are supported by all mainstream political parties and supported by recognised experts in the field. That said the Daily mail doesn't which in my mind says a lot.

Red or Yellow. Both plug into the exiting roads at the correct point so that traffic will flow easily. Those that plug into the mini bridgefoot bypass are rather pointless.

I must admit the -0.75% rate came as a bit of a surprise for all. Most were banking on a 1% or 1.5% amended rate. It appears the reliance on gilts which in the past were good strong performers is at the heart of this. As Truss said, she was bound by law to make this calculation. I suspect this will change and change very quickly. Suggestions of a graded discount rate based on period its supposed to last has been suggested to reflect the differences in short term and long term investments. Im sure most insurers are already looking at submitting alternative procedures. I don't think this new figure will be around too long. Of course the issue with the NHS is that if they didn't make as many mistakes or decided to settle claims quicker then savings could be made that would easily offset this.

From someone who practices in this area. let me clarify a few points. These are all my own personal views : LASPO 2013 reduced legal costs in car accidents by 40%. Did premiums go down? No. The ABI admitted at a recent parliamentary committee that the insurance industry had saved hundreds of millions from this change. The discount rate has been at 2.5% since 2001 since which returns in long term investments were much less. Did premiums go down to reflect the windfall to the insurers? No. BTW if a person receiving a future loss award runs out of the money provided under the award for their long term care, then the tax payer will have to pick the tab up. These awards are usually for the most seriously injured (tetraplegia, brain injury or other long term conditions that can last for life) and thus I trust you wont begrudge them receiving money from the person who caused it (via insurance) as opposed to the taxpayer in general? The reforms quoted above start in October 2018 if parliament approves the same. The average premium reduction will be £40 per year. There is no statutory mechanism to ensure that the savings are passed on in premium reduction and as of yet only 2 insurers (Aviva /LV) have "promised" to pass on the savings. However what you don't know is that the proposed reforms will also result in losses to the NHS (they can recover from insurers the costs of attending hospital / in patients / ambulance services) and the DWP (benefits paid are deductible from damages and repaid to the DWP). The sums quoted are many millions per annum. Again question whether that is reasonable? The government recently announced an increase in insurance premium tax (IPT) which in effect wiped out the saving per policy proposed anyway. The proposed reforms will result in between 35,000 and 60,000 job losses. Income Tax revenue, VAT revenue will drop. benefit payments will increase. Oh and Whiplash numbers are dropping but ironically reducing the costs recoverable means that challenging them becomes less economically viable and as such means that they are likely to go up again albeit the effect will be payments will be less. Always the bigger picture to consider as opposed to just the headline.

Thanks Gary but that to me doesn't look like a promise to cut them but merely a promise to review the same with a view to cut them. A world of difference between the two. The review it seems has found that its unsupportable due to intervention from other authorities. In which case the hullabaloo about promises and the MP standing down etc is somewhat misplaced. Again if there is a cast iron promise / guarantee then I'd like to see it and if so then I share some of the views about it now being withdrawn. if it doesn't exist, then perhaps we should cast the net wider as to where fault lies but aside from that, again I see no plans to deal with the fall out save for a petition which if successful will result in legal action which will delay matters further and guarantee nothing in the short term or indeed long term.

I've been trying to find the promise that it will be free to Warrington. Osbourne appears to say he will look into it but not actually confirm it from my research. If anyone can find the quote confirming categorically that he promised it then let me know. I don't count Twitter BTW from a personal account and indeed I would expect no one with a mind to either. That said since day one its been known that in the event of tolls traffic will increase through Warrington. I think 15%+ was rumoured and the plans appear to have been based on hoping that the tolls will be free to Warrington. However other local authorities were never going to get it so traffic was always going to go up. Plans for this? None. So at least 2 maybe 3 years of gridlock from this Autumn. And as the new road is in part of open the land up to development, then I don't think this will make life any easier. No one comes out of this looking good and to seek to blame it all on the MP is a tad disingenuous. Now the announcement has been made, what are the very urgent plans that need to be adopted in say 9 months to cope with this.

Think the line closed in 1962 to passenger traffic and then deemed unsafe in 1985 so the rest was shut. (Wikipedia)

I understand its barely staying up and would costs a fortune to renovate or remove. Perhaps use it as a railway....nah too radical that.

There was no stampede, rush or sudden build up. I recall it vividly. As per most terraces, pressure built and people tried to squeeze in but here there was a combination of effects. The central tunnel had a slope down towards the pens. This slope exceeded recommendations for such sports grounds. It was dark and narrow and once in there you couldn't turn round as others come in behind you. You had nowhere to go. As the police wrongly thought, the fans "would find their own level". It was a cumulative effect. A few enter and cant get in, some more enter and cant get in and gravity kicks in with the weight of a mass of people. There was some give and some jostling I have no doubt but I've since read that crowds act like fluids and don't need much of a force to cause changes in flow. Also in pen 3 a barrier failed and collapsed. That would have been holding some back and when it failed caused yet a further crush and a toppling effect both at the front and the back. I was told when I tried to exit from the pens that I couldn't go through the tunnel because there were bodies in there. So lets stop this now. No crush, no rush, no stampede. No fault of the fans.

Cant believe I'm reading some of this. My previous comment was a summary. I left out loads which the inquest didn't. Lets kill some things for starters, - In 1988 the semi had a cordon prior to the turnstiles. That would have provided a filter and broken up the approach to the turnstiles. None such cordon in 1989 - In 1988 the police closed the tunnel gates when it was full. Didn't in 1989. - People were drinking but the numerous (hundreds) of statements taken decided it wasn't a factor i.e. it had no effect on the cause. - The police opened gate C three times with no thought as to what happened afterwards. - We were told to go to the nearest part of the ground when we got off the coach. It wasn't correct. Police determined where the coaches went. Oh and to get us to Sheffield they sent us to Leeds first! - The police refused to consider a delayed kick off. instead they just opened a gate. - People screaming with their faces crushed against the fence is not a "disturbance". There is enough video / photos evidence of this to prove it. Police just stood around doing nothing. - 1 ambulance made it onto the pitch. The police failed to declare a major incident despite fatalities having already occurred. Only 14 of the 96 were admitted to hospital. I could go on and on and on. I suggest you read the independent committee's report that covers it all. I have and there could only be one possible outcome of the inquests

I was there that day as was my brother. It was a complete mess up from minute one. I was allowed with my friend decked head to toe in Liverpool stuff to walk all the way up to the wrong terrace acting on instructions previously given. The turnstiles were too narrow, then when you got through them you could go where you wanted. A nice gap in an adjacent wall was left open despite having a gate on it. I was 17, hadn't been there before and naturally gravitated down the tunnel as I could see the goal there. Gates on that tunnel were not used, signs didn't direct you elsewhere and no one was organising it. The slope on that tunnel was steeper than it is now and gravity in a crush would make matters worse. It was very dark and narrow as well. There was a wall either side of the tunnel when you exited it that stopped you going sideways and thus directed you to the front where I stood for 20 mins before realising I couldn't see anything. The naivety of youth eh but probably saved my life. Fences stopped people going sideways within the pens and barriers were not of the standard seen in other grounds (Id stood on most of the major terraces at that point). Exit gates at the front were locked. Fans thrown back in when they did get out and despite the obvious cries for help, police just stood there. 1 ambulance got onto the pitch. After being stuck for over 3 hours. I was left to find my own way out try to avoid going where people had died. The blame has quite rightly been apportioned and way too late.

Read up on this process since I heard about it. Rule K arbitration can take sometime. For example the Hull City "Tigers" issue started as a Rule K arbitration in July 2014 and wasn't heard Feb 2015. The process involves it seems submitting a case, the respondent replying and the applicant responding to the replies. An arbitrator then needs to be agreed and skeleton arguments are served before the hearing. The matter is then reserved for the outcome. Id guess just setting it up and getting the documents going will be about 4-6 weeks minimum. Cant see this being sorted before the end of the season in any way shape or form. However when pushed they can push it through. Andy Carroll appealed a suspension within 1 week. Suggest the same urgency is applied here. So we have to win the league not taking this into account and not hope that we have to rely upon this.