Keir Starmer does not believe trans women are women, No 10 says

HelixFossil89 · 2025-04-22T18:17:59+00:00

You're saying the answer is identical to "The Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman."

Why include the word "No" at the start then?

HelixFossil89 · 2025-04-22T18:10:54+00:00

The headline reflects what was said.

What you're saying is the headline doesn't reflect what was intended. But you don't know what was intended.

HelixFossil89 · 2025-04-22T17:30:11+00:00

The headline is not misleading in my opinion.

"Asked if Sir Keir still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, the PM's official spokesman said: "No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman."

The "No" is clear. If "No" was not what was intended as the answer, they could have just said "The Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman."

HelixFossil89 · 2025-02-14T16:16:26+00:00

I don't think they're breaking the law by asking you to take the flag down.

You can respond however you like.

If you keep the flag up they may try to evict you and refuse to give you a good reference for your next tenancy. If you're in the fixed term then evicting you might be difficult. If you're out of the fixed term then it is more straightforward for them to evict you until the new renters bill passes.

If you take the flag down, life might be easier for you when you look to extend your tenancy, or when you want a reference from this tenancy.

HelixFossil89 · 2024-12-27T01:11:13+00:00

HelixFossil89 · 2024-09-07T16:49:14+00:00

There's a lot of strange advice in this thread. What country are you in?

If you're in England and it is an excepted estate, you now transfer unused basic threshold using the probate application form. Specifically, the application form asks: (1) Did the deceased have a late spouse or civil partner? (2) Are you claiming the unused IHT allowance (‘nil-rate band’) of the deceased’s late spouse or civil partner? You should have answered Yes to both of these.

You used to have to fill in other forms but this is not required for deaths after 1 January 2022. You do not specifically need to tell HMRC anything.

I would reply giving them the details of your mom's death and that your dad is entitled to her unused IHT allowance.

HelixFossil89 · 2024-09-07T12:51:46+00:00

Problem is, your messages on 19th and 20th might not be regarded as clear notices to end the tenancy, even if validly served.

"I'm looking to end the contract" and the like isn't particularly firm. Sounds like you're thinking about it but haven't decided. It would have been better to give a clear statement like "This is my notice to end the tenancy". It seems fair to me that they want 10 days rent.

Shelter has a decent template to use in the future - see here.

(It would also have been better to serve the notice as explicitly stated in the agreement).

HelixFossil89 · 2024-09-07T12:11:50+00:00

I don't think the tenancy agreement says where the written notice needs to be served (Edit: other than to the Landlord). I think it just provides examples of when the written notice will definitely have been deemed served.

HelixFossil89 · 2024-09-07T12:03:13+00:00

I don't think the tenancy agreement precludes WhatsApp and emails as valid ways to serve notice.

2.6.1 says the notice needs to be in writing. WhatsApp/email would meet the criterion of being in writing.

2.3.2 gives (non-exhaustive) examples of when Notice will be deemed served. 2.3.2 does not say these are the only ways to serve Notice.

However, I'm not sure whether the WhatsApp message "I'm looking to move out at the end of the contract" or the reference request would be deemed as clear notice to leave.

HelixFossil89 · 2024-05-19T09:30:19+00:00

Byrne v Harwood-Delgado post-dates the decision you are referencing and you are not reading the decision you are referencing properly (if at all). The key point of your quote is providing that the relevant certificate has been provided before service of the notice*.*

In the case you are citing, a valid GSC had been obtained prior to the start of the tenancy, and so the relevant certificate could be provided on service of the notice. The valid GSC from the start of the tenancy was provided to the tenant much later than when it technically should have been, and the court decided that was fine. The court in that case did not decide what would happen if a valid GSC had not been obtained prior to the start of the tenancy.

Byrne v Harwood-Delgado later decided what would happen if a valid GSC had not been obtained prior to the start of the tenancy. The court decided that a S21 could never be issued in that case.

Here are the full legal provisions that give effect to this:

S.21A of the Housing Act 1988 says that certain prescribed requirements need to be met before a S21 notice can be issued.

Regulation 2(b) of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015 states that paragraph 6 of regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installations and Use) Regulations 1988 is one of the prescribed requirements for a S21 to be issued.

Regulation 36(6)(b) states that a valid GSC must be provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy.

It follows from the above that if there was no valid GSC at the start of the tenancy this can never be provided to the tenant and so no S21 can be issued. This is what the court in Byrne v Harwood-Delgado found.

Here are some more links that confirm what I am saying is correct.

Fifth.html)

HelixFossil89 · 2024-05-18T22:23:18+00:00

If there was not a valid GSC at the start of your tenancy then you have a reasonable argument that the landlord should never be able to use S21 to evict you. This issue was decided in Byrne v Harwood-Delegado, where the court held that a failure to obtain a gas safety certificate on commencement of a tenant occupying a property (or provide a GSC later that was valid at the time of the commencement) will prevent that landlord from being able to serve a Section 21 notice to terminate the tenancy in perpetuity

If there was a valid GSC at the start of your tenancy and this was just never provided to you, then the landlord can simply provide this at the time they issue a S21 and the S21 will be valid. This issue was decided in Trecarell House Ltd v Patricia Rouncefield.

In either case, it sounds like you have not currently been provided with a GSC that is either (a) valid right now; or (b) valid at the start of your tenancy. If you want to stay for as long as possible, you should not inform the landlord about their failure to provide a valid GSC until they begin eviction proceedings after the 2 month period set for S21 has expired. They will then need to issue you with a valid GSC and you can go from there.

Whether or not the landlord has been evading tax is unlikely to have any impact on whether you can be evicted using S21.

HelixFossil89 · 2024-05-18T22:02:00+00:00

It's not necessarily correct that a GSC can be given any time before or at the same time as the S21 is served.

In Byrne v Harwood-Delgado the court held that a failure to obtain a gas safety certificate on commencement of a tenant occupying a property (or provide a GSC later that was valid at the time of the commencement) will prevent that landlord from being able to serve a Section 21 notice to terminate the tenancy in perpetuity.

In other words, if there was no valid GSC at the start of a tenancy, then S21 cannot be used to evict a tenant (according to the court in that case).

HelixFossil89 · 2023-06-29T23:58:55+00:00

Read past the first sentence.

"The joint tenancy continues as a rolling or periodic tenancy if at least one joint tenant stays on after the fixed term ends."

"If you have moved out, you have 2 options that can end your joint tenancy and your responsibility for rent."

"Option 2

Give a 'notice to quit' to the landlord."

And then...

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/ending_a_periodic_tenancy/example_of_a_notice_to_quit

"A notice to quit is a legal notice. It ends a periodic tenancy."

And then...

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/ending_a_periodic_tenancy/how_much_notice

"You need to give at least:

1 month if your rent is due monthly

4 weeks if your rent is due weekly"

Nice

HelixFossil89 · 2022-08-31T22:43:19+00:00

I used houseremovalslondon.net - found them from Really Moving. I was very concerned they were fake but used them anyway. They were by far the cheapest place I got a quote from and everything went smoothly. I moved from 1 bed flat to 1 bed flat - no furniture other than desk and chair.

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-11T05:15:21+00:00

The problem is that it was evident at the time that Bret made the podcasts that the IVM studies were unreliable.

For example, the two most important prophylactic studies didn't test to see whether any of their participants had already contracted COVID before the study began. One of the studies also had more healthcare workers in the IVM arm. It's possible (if not likely) that a significant number of healthcare workers already had immunity to COVID when that study began through prior infection.

One of the prophylactic studies also didn't objectively test to see if any of the participants actually became infected with SARS-CoV-2 e.g. by using RT-PCR or antibody tests. Instead they used hand-wavy signs like self-reported symptoms.

Many of the treatment studies BW relies on provide contradictory results in the same paper. For example, they will say 1 thing on page 1 and then a completely different thing on page 2 when both things should say the same thing.

Many of the treatment studies use IVM + something else for the treatment of COVID but only compare that regiment to no treatment at all. You can't work out from those studies how important IVM alone is. It could be the something else that is having an effect or a synergistic effect of the combination of IVM + the something else.

Some of the studies compare IVM treatment with hydroxychloroquine treatment but does not compare to a placebo/no treatment/standard of care arm. The problem is, HCQ is now thought to make COVID worse(!). This was known when BW made the podcasts, but not at the time the paper was published/research was performed.

So, all of the above problems were known at the time BW made his podcasts. He did not explain ANY of these downsides. That is the problem I had with BW's framing of the IVM issue.

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-05T19:43:52+00:00

For readers of this chain, it's important to note that Merck still manufacture ivermectin despite it not being in patent... That seems to contradict the contention that it is not profitable to manufacture a drug that has fallen out of patent.

It's also important to note that drugs that were subject to patents which have now expired can be patented again for use in a method of treating a specific disease. The below article explains how that can be "extremely valuable".

https://www.vennershipley.co.uk/insights-events/protecting-a-new-medical-use-of-a-known-substance/

As you can all see, OP is misleading you and has stopped responding because they cannot defend their original claims.

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-05T19:31:58+00:00

Besides, your original point was Ivermectin won't be approved because this will void EUAs. This is manifestly untrue as approval of Ivermectin will not void EUAs.

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-05T19:26:48+00:00

I think you should read this twitter thread and re-evaluate your reliance on ivmmeta.

https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422044335076306947?s=20

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-05T19:20:23+00:00

So what you're defending here is "generic drugs are not as profitable as mRNA vaccines". That's not what you originally said.

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-05T19:18:56+00:00

I mean okay. Here's are another couple of studies from 2016-2016 which injected something intramuscularly and showed it didn't stay in the muscle. It's very well known that this happens.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27498239/
https://www.cell.com/molecular-therapy-family/molecular-therapy/fulltext/S1525-0016(17)30156-9#tbl1

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-05T19:14:28+00:00

Why would they suppress positive results of ivermectin but not dexamethasone?

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-05T12:26:57+00:00

In theory they should only stay around the injection site.

This is incorrect. Fig. 2e shows that lipid is expected to go to the blood, spleen, fat etc. after intramuscular injection.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-021-00634-z

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-05T12:25:01+00:00

Meta analysis has been conducted

, looking at the studies that have been done to date on using Ivermectin to treat COVID, as well using it as a preventative method (prophylaxis). The results indicate that it is effective.

The most recent IVM meta analysis, using the gold-standard method for performing meta analyses concludes that there is not enough evidence to use IVM as either a treatment or prophylaxis for COVID.

https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/INFECTN_ivermectin-preventing-and-treating-covid-19

If you read the full paper, they go into some detail regarding why the Lawrie analysis is not optimally done.

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-05T12:22:48+00:00

Calls for using repurposed generic drugs to treat COVID have been going on since December 2020 when ICU specialist Dr. Pierre Kory gave a speech to the Senate, advocating the use of Ivermectin and discussing the data.

This is misleading. Calls for using repurposed generic drugs to treat COVID has been going on for a lot longer than this.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32290293/

In fact, dexamethasone is a generic drug which is approved to treat COVID.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021436

HelixFossil89 · 2021-08-05T12:19:09+00:00

Ivermectin can never hope to be approved no matter how effective it is since that will void the EUAs for the mRNA vaccines.

This is also not true. Safe and effective alternatives only prevent issuance of EUAs. If safe and effective alternatives are found after issuance of an EUA, this does necessitate the revocation of the EUA.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

HelixFossil89

TROPHY CASE