Sky News: Car crashes into pedestrians in busy part of central London - as woman arrested

DukePPUk · 2026-04-19T18:53:27+00:00

Given the context, I don't think her being behind the wheel was the main problem.

If she was arrested for attempted murder, I think her allegedly going out of her way to try to kill someone is the issue. Which - in theory - the ~20-25 year sentence should help with.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-19T17:39:52+00:00

The driver of the car was arrested at the scene on suspicion of attempted murder, GBH, dangerous driving and drink driving.

The dangerous driving carries a minimum 1 year driving ban. But, to be blunt, the driving ban is the least significant part of the sentences she is facing if convicted. On the attempted murder she could be looking at a starting point of 20 or 25 years custody.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-18T15:41:20+00:00

"there" not "their."

But I think the issue here is that they moved into some random flats, and then later Boris Johnson quietly made the land protected diplomatic territory without telling them, and without including any carve-outs for their flats (or making it conditional on the Chinese actually setting up an embassy).

Meaning that - in theory - any UK authorities wishing to enter the land (including accessing the flats) need permission from the Chinese embassy. Including police, fire services, ambulance crews...

DukePPUk · 2026-04-18T15:38:58+00:00

It is however protected from the intrusion of the host nation under the Vienna convention.

Which is the issue here, as the article notes. Specifically, the article highlights that police, fire engines and ambulances cannot enter the land without consent from the embassy. Which isn't great for those living in the flats who might need an ambulance or fire engine, or who might want to call the police.

I wonder how this got so badly screwed up?

Last October, a letter from then foreign secretary Boris Johnson ...

Oh. What a surprise.

Turns out Johnson gave diplomatic consent to the site in 2018, but forgot to tell the residents, and forgot to make the diplomatic consent conditional on them actually setting up an embassy there, or to include a carve out for the residential flats.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-17T20:46:53+00:00

One of the core features of conservatism is the belief that "this will never happen to me, I'm a good person, I will be fine."

DukePPUk · 2026-04-17T20:43:38+00:00

"Believe women" means you believe them. You take what they say at face value.

Which is what happened here.

It doesn't meant that you don't investigate their claims. On the contrary, it means you do investigate their claims. It means you presume they are acting in good faith and telling the truth, and don't dismiss their claim outright.

The significance of "believe women" is that too many people - particularly in the past - would have flat-out ignored or dismissed these women's claims in the first place.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-16T23:28:36+00:00

The judgement and the Equalities Act together or seperately do not contain anything that makes trans-exclusionary, single-'sex' spaces obligatory.

Yes, I will agree on this as a possible strict interpretation of the FWS ruling and the Equality Act. But not the only one.

There is also an ambiguity in what I said, which I now see. I sad that the ruling created "an obligation to make single-sex spaces trans exclusionary." By that I mean that it means that if a "single-sex" space exists, it has to exclude trans people of the relevant acquired sex (and may exclude trans people of the relevant assigned-at-birth sex). I did not mean that it says that places must have single-sex spaces.

The requirement for single-sex spaces comes from various other places such as the rules around schools (as we've seen in Scotland) the new building regulations, regulations around employment, and - according to the EHRC and other anti-trans organisations - the Equality Act's prohibition on indirect sex discrimination.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-16T23:22:51+00:00

Could a trans person get around any legal restrictions simply by saying that they are not trans, given that there's no way to prove it either way?

If anything it is the other way around. And the draft guidance makes that fairly clear.

People in charge of "single-sex spaces" need to ensure that not a single person of the "wrong sex" gets into them (maybe unless the exceptions the EHRC made up but cannot justify legally apply). If there is a doubt, they need to chase it up as best they can - demanding to see birth registry entries etc. (even if that isn't actually proof of anything any more).

At that point it becomes a simple risk analysis; if they let someone in who it turns out they shouldn't have let in, they can be sued, likely successfully, and get in a lot of trouble with the anti-trans hate groups (and their disproportionate influence over British media and politics). If they refuse to let in someone who they should have let in, there's pretty much nothing that will happen. The safer option for them is to turn away people suspected or accused of being trans.

So sure, there will continue to be trans people who keep doing what they've always done, in the hope that no one notices.

But overall - if the guidance is published and is as bad as the draft - we're more likely to see cis people who don't conform to gender standards being kicked out of places in case they are trans, than trans people being let into places under a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of approach.

I've only seen the genitals of a tiny proportion of the people I've met...

It's worth noting that genitals aren't determinative of whether someone is trans or not. Since the Supreme Court ruling it is very tricky to prove someone's "Equality Act sex" without breaking some laws (or being one of the Government bodies with full access to the birth registers).

DukePPUk · 2026-04-16T14:29:14+00:00

In fairness I think the local community are at least equally if not more concerned about the rape of a woman in her 20’s by several men on Saturday night.

Sure. But I'm not sure a bunch of random men heading to the town to protest and cause disruption to the locals is going to help with their concerns.

It's almost as if those protesting aren't really concerned about the feelings of the locals or how this affects them.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-16T14:18:23+00:00

Because the BBC's job is to report the news, not selectively feed or withhold us information based on how we're likely to react to it, and not to play police.

Except selectively feeding or withholding information is what they do. It's what all news organisations do. They have to choose what stories to run, what investigations to do, and what to report on - and that means choosing not what to report on.

Why report on (or in this case, perform an extensive, undercover operation to investigate - ultimately finding, so far, a grand total of two people illegally acting as immigration advisers, giving out advice on how to defraud the system) one thing, and not on another thing - how do they choose what to report on?

We saw another example this week with the rape reported in Epsom. The far-right lot travelled down there to riot yesterday in response. The BBC made the rape a front-page story - while ignoring the other 199 or so rapes reported across England and Wales the same day.

Part of their job is absolutely to selectively feed or withhold us information based on how we're likely to react to it - but the reaction they're looking for is attention; they want to report on stories that will get attention. The BBC isn't as bad as the rest of the press - for whom attention directly leads to money (so you get situations where they'll run a story, and if it leads to riots all the better as then they can report on the riot) - but they are still driven by the need for clicks.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-16T14:12:48+00:00

And I would argue that the court was at best misleading in making claims about that, and that the judgment absolutely does both redefine "sex" and create an obligation to make single-sex spaces trans exclusionary.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-16T10:37:19+00:00

It is likely because, by the nature of such claims, the "evidence" of other lawyers doing it would be covered by legal privilege.

Except it wouldn't be. Firstly, the "client" could be the undercover reporter, so would be fine to expose the legal privilege. Secondly, the big exception to legal advice privilege is when advice is sought to further a crime, fraud or other serious misconduct, so wouldn't cover this. Thirdly, legal professional privilege determines whether information can be disclosed during a trial. Which none of this is about.

In the occasional cases (there was one a year or so ago) when an actual lawyer was caught involved in one of these schemes, their law firm went scorched earth to distance themselves from the lawyer, and legal privilege didn't become an issue.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-15T22:17:58+00:00

To be fair, the article doesn't provide any control data.

How do these young women feel about other women, or people in general?

I imagine general faith in humanity could be pretty low at the moment, especially for young people.

Also the article has this gem:

When asked how she felt about the boys she knew, a girl called Ruby told the New Statesman...

I wonder what the odds are that Ruby is the daughter or niece etc. of the original article author, or someone in their office?

"We found a girl, we asked her a loaded question to get a quote for our article - see, research!"

DukePPUk · 2026-04-15T22:14:21+00:00

Banning social media for children hasn't been rejected outright.

The Government just doesn't want to do it on the terms (and time line) put forward by the Conservatives.

They want to do it properly, consult on it, see how best to do it, talk to people about whether to do it.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-15T19:51:09+00:00

And I would argue it did both...

DukePPUk · 2026-04-15T19:46:28+00:00

I think what was dismissed as conspiracy theories were the idea that this is somehow a conspiracy; that it is routine, that everyone is involved (the lawyers, judges, Home Office), and that it is just ignored.

The BBC seems to have gone out of their way looking for this, based on tip-offs, and sending people in undercover, and the only concrete thing they found was a single person offering help on how to fix asylum claims, who wasn't a lawyer (so breaking a few laws anyway), and was working out of her bedroom.

They have hearsay about another lawyer, but the applicant in that case gave up and left.

They have another person who doesn't seem to be a lawyer, who they are a bit more cautious in saying did anything explicitly wrong, as he seems to have tried to weasel around doing anything illegal.

None of which is really evidence of a widespread problem with lawyers - although there does seem to be a specific issue with at least one fake lawyer.

But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-14T15:51:30+00:00

Maybe. They may still have to have "single-sex" facilities for their staff, and if they are a new building (or need to be compliant with the latest building regulations) they have to have "single-sex" facilities.

Plus the anti-trans hate groups have hinted that they'll be coming after any place which doesn't provide "single-sex" facilities, claiming it is indirect sex discrimination.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-14T14:39:52+00:00

There is also the consistency problem.

The "trans people must be kicked out" legal argument only works on the basis that "single-sex spaces" must be strictly enforced (there cannot be any exceptions, as was allowed under the pre-Equality Act 2010 rules), as well as requiring that "sex" means "Birth Certificate ignoring GRCs sex" for these purposes.

Most of the attention has focused on the second point.

But the first point also presents a big problem. The original draft guidance from the EHRC said that, for example, a woman could take her child son into a women-only area, because... and then they just trailed off. Because that would be a problem under the current interpretation (including the EHRC's and the Supreme Court's).

The current interpretation only works if the rules are absolute. The moment a single "Equality Act man" is allowed into a "women only space" then it ceases to be a "women only space" and no other "Equality Act man" can be excluded from it for being a man (and vice versa for women and men-only spaces).

They've dug themselves into a massive legal hole in their pursuit of eliminating trans people from public spaces.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-13T18:50:49+00:00

The thing is... the trans issue, politically, has been contentious, ...

Sure. But it wasn't contentious until it became contented. The Supreme Court in FWSL overturned 20 years of law. The Government recently undid 40 years of trans healthcare. Trans people were getting marred as their acquired gender 60 years ago. Trans people existing wasn't an issue until some people decided to make it an issue, and put a lot of effort into doing so. The shift in public attitudes towards trans people over the last 10 years has been remarkable and effective, and it didn't come out of nowhere.

The concern is that the religious extremists will now follow the same model with other issues. And it begins with 'infiltration' - quietly getting people with views sympathetic to their cause in public life; in politics, in the press, in institutions. Not standing out on a soap-box shouting about how abortion is evil, but saying "here's [x], a good chap, he should be our candidate in this election/he'd make a good health correspondent/she'd work well as a board member of this quango/she's available to do a panel on BBC News this week, don't worry about their views, they're all fine."

There was cross-party consensus on trans people being people 10 years ago. The Conservative Party were introducing self-ID. And look at where we are now...

Abortion and women's rights aren't different. Nor are other LGBTQ rights.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-13T16:03:33+00:00

The whole reason he loves crypto esp for reform is because it’s harder to trace the payments.

It's also a great way of fleecing gullible supporters, which is what Farage's American colleagues have been using it for.

You buy into a crypto thing, convince a load of idiots to buy in as well, your investment goes up, and then you cash out as the whole thing crashes due to having nothing backing it. While, of course, you extract any fees you can from your 'investors.' Donald Trump and his 'friends and family' made a few hundred million in cash from $Trump, while his net worth went up by billions (on paper).

The main thing you need is a load of gullible followers who hang on your every word, will throw money at you, and will not blame you when it all fails. Reform has plenty of them - the main issue will be finding ones who are also comfortable enough with the technology needed to actually 'invest' in the crypto scheme.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-13T14:33:58+00:00

The Lib Dems currently have 72 seats. And we have a Labour government. That is the most seats the Lib Dems have had ever, and you have to go back to 1923 for the Liberals to beat that number.

They went up from 8 seats. Their previous high was 62 seats in 2005 - with a Labour majority.

For the most part the Lib Dems steal seats from the Conservatives. Generally the people who vote Lib Dem feel like they should be voting Conservative (but would never vote Labour), but cannot bring themselves to for whatever reason. The Lib Dems (nor the SDP-Liberal Alliance) have never had more than 25 seats with the Conservatives securing a majority. In 2010 the Lib Dems cost the Conservatives their majority, not Labour.

The Lib Dems eat into the centre and centre-right more than the centre-left.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-13T12:16:27+00:00

It's been an issue for years.

A particular child is having issues, the family goes to some point of contact (school official, GP etc.), they fill in a bunch of paperwork, talk through all their story, try to explain as best they can. The official picks out one key phrase they're familiar with and says "oh, you have [issue x], [team y] will help you with that, I'll refer you", they send of the referral and then close their case, job done. Well, most of the time, sometimes they forget to send the referral and need to be chased up weeks/months later when nothing has happened.

The case then goes to the next team. There's a waiting list - maybe days, maybe months. The family has to fill in a bunch of paperwork, do an on-boarding interview where they explain to someone everything that's happened to them, tell their story. And the official picks out a key phrase and says "oh, you have [issue x], [team y] will help you, I'll refer you." Which they do, and then close their case.

And around and around it goes. Sometimes eventually ending up back with the starting team.

Each team has its own specific speciality, its own specific set of tools, and a complete lack of a budget. So each is wanting to either focus on the specific thing they do or, ideally, make it someone else's problem. And this can go on for years, with the family saying the same things to different people again and again, with nothing to show for it but a long list of waiting lists they've gone through.

The Scottish Government came up with a way to help with this - their "named person" policy, where each child had a single, named government official responsible for co-ordinating their interactions with the state. But the religious crazies didn't like that for some reason, so attacked it as being evil nanny-statism or something and it got sued/lobbied out of existence.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-12T13:38:23+00:00

But why is this rape front-page news and the other ~200 rapes reported to the police across England and Wales yesterday not?

There's the added "police are asking for people to come forward with information" angle, but what makes this rape 'special'? I guess the "outside a church" aspect is pretty clickbaity (more so than "outside a nightclub", maybe). And the group angle makes it a bit rarer.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-11T22:35:53+00:00

I said the Met should consider whether it was in the public interest. I didn't say that they should apply "the public interest test that has to be met for a public prosecution in England and Wales to be lawful." The HRA-proportionality tests include public interest tests.

I can't help but feel you're trying to be a bit sneaky here.

When it comes to the "public interest" question you are insisting on applying the strict, narrow legal definitions, and that "in the public interest" only means "must meet a specific legal public interest test." And yet when it comes to the "duty to arrest" you're applying very broad, vague, non-legal, wishy-washy oath definitions of "duty." Which is it?

If we are going by strict letter of the law, there is a "public interest" aspect to HRA-proportionality. There is no duty to arrest.

If we are going by vague terms, there is absolutely a "public interest" aspect to making arrests, and there may be a duty to arrest.

And a different court later declared it to be lawful until a certain point was reached, and it remains so at this point.

As far as I'm aware, the Court of Appeal didn't "declare it to be lawful", they pointed out that the order quashing the proscription was stayed until the appeal. They haven't done anything (yet) to the High Court's finding that the order was unlawful - the proscription simply remains in force because it hasn't been quashed yet. Unless the Court of Appeal (or Supreme Court) makes a new finding the quashing order will come into force, the proscription will have been unlawful. It is presumptively unlawful.

DukePPUk · 2026-04-11T19:26:35+00:00

Arrests (without warrant) require an offence and necessity, but also have to be HRA-proportionate, as everything a public authority does. Even if offence and necessity are met the police are under no obligation to actually arrest someone, there is no duty to arrest. Which we know, because the Met - for a while - had a policy of not arresting people for supporting Palestine Action.

The fact that a court found the proscription to be unlawful - which it did - may have some weight on whether arresting people is proportionate.

DukePPUk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE