James Bambury
@jbambury.bsky.social
Transport planning data and modelling. Pootling on a bike
Yep. Very much Change, the pdf name even starts with 'Change', there's the 3 titles with 'Change' and the opening sentence 'This election is about change'
The income tax pledge didn't even make the '6 first steps' or 'five missions' but buried mid paragraph on p19 in the economic stability section.
The income tax pledge didn't even make the '6 first steps' or 'five missions' but buried mid paragraph on p19 in the economic stability section.
November 14, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Yep. Very much Change, the pdf name even starts with 'Change', there's the 3 titles with 'Change' and the opening sentence 'This election is about change'
The income tax pledge didn't even make the '6 first steps' or 'five missions' but buried mid paragraph on p19 in the economic stability section.
The income tax pledge didn't even make the '6 first steps' or 'five missions' but buried mid paragraph on p19 in the economic stability section.
Fairly sure it's just wrong. The ruling was on the narrow definition of 'woman' in the EA2010 as by extension it is such in the scot gov's law on board rep.
Not sure that really extends to a charity's top <number> women in <area> list where they can use a trans inclusive definition if they wish.
Not sure that really extends to a charity's top <number> women in <area> list where they can use a trans inclusive definition if they wish.
![Screenshot of page 2 of "For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent)" supreme court judgement highlighted as follows:
"LORD HODGE, LADY ROSE AND LADY SIMLER (with whom Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones agree):
1. This appeal is concerned with establishing the correct interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 (“the EA 2010”) which seeks to give statutory protection to people who are at risk of suffering from unlawful discrimination. The questions raised by this appeal directly affect women and members of the trans community. On the one hand, women have historically suffered from discrimination in our society and since 1975 have been given statutory protection against discrimination on the ground of sex. On the other hand, the trans community is both historically and currently a vulnerable community which Parliament has more recently sought to protect by statutory provision.
[start highlight] 2. It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. [end highlight] It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”). "](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7bdaie3lb5phmvsfpparhoql/bafkreiht5qbbhapc3tmqvzyvrjuvscuc3ha5zbfw733qa3r7lycxvup6nm@jpeg)
November 7, 2025 at 4:03 PM
Fairly sure it's just wrong. The ruling was on the narrow definition of 'woman' in the EA2010 as by extension it is such in the scot gov's law on board rep.
Not sure that really extends to a charity's top <number> women in <area> list where they can use a trans inclusive definition if they wish.
Not sure that really extends to a charity's top <number> women in <area> list where they can use a trans inclusive definition if they wish.
Feedback from McSweeney and co
September 5, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Feedback from McSweeney and co
I've seen the same in my own NTS processing, this is looking at all Home to Home tours rather than specifically morning diversions. (2015-2019)
July 17, 2025 at 5:55 PM
I've seen the same in my own NTS processing, this is looking at all Home to Home tours rather than specifically morning diversions. (2015-2019)
Well it was an exclusive for you obviously...
July 8, 2025 at 11:25 AM
Well it was an exclusive for you obviously...
Not entirely sure why my idle youtube procrastination is getting interrupted by Israeli propaganda for their warmongering. 🙄
June 16, 2025 at 7:20 PM
Not entirely sure why my idle youtube procrastination is getting interrupted by Israeli propaganda for their warmongering. 🙄
Oh, well I guess it doesn't help when the commission itself runs with similar framing in its press release 😬
June 11, 2025 at 9:04 AM
Oh, well I guess it doesn't help when the commission itself runs with similar framing in its press release 😬
Not just the BBC, across the board.
June 11, 2025 at 9:02 AM
Not just the BBC, across the board.
That's always been the case for the 2001-2017 era VED rates. The main change here for those age vehicles is that Band A is being removed so all Band A vehicles will now pay the £20 Band B rate
January 31, 2025 at 12:05 PM
That's always been the case for the 2001-2017 era VED rates. The main change here for those age vehicles is that Band A is being removed so all Band A vehicles will now pay the £20 Band B rate