For those in the area, his place was just next to the Robin Hood Inn on Tincklers Lane. Saw him out training a couple of times. He went a bit quicker than me.

In terms of defection, I suspect the real inflection point will be as and if a local Tory association or two hold EGMs and become local Reform Associations, possibly driven by councillors intent on retaining local authority control.

Here in the UK, 15 years ago when my oldest was 10, I was called in to see the headteacher at his primary school and told, very politely, that she was concerned that I was allowing him to ride the 2k to and from school.

I'm glass half full on this. If you look at some estates which were seen as dumps 20 yrs ago, their walkable design has really helped their transformation into lovely places, tho in other walkable ones but where Radburn design dominates (doors facing away from each other), it's prob made it worse

Maybe by mistake, but yes. You can walk from the river Tawd in the middle right through town and under the ring road to the top of Beacon Country park without crossing a road, or even a driveway (I've just double checked that for an urban 10k race I'm looking to organise as it keeps costs down).

Yes, I know. Why I mentioned. It's not changed much, other than old people griping about it on Facebook now.

But it's not changed that much everywhere. Plenty of pre-teens knock about their estates in Skem, and sometimes wander a bit further, without parent supervision. It's a class-oriented norm, though in Skem I do think the relatively car-free estate layouts help, for all the design faults.

My initial hope that it would be Fife-like looks too optimistic. It looks pretty bleak tbh, re: the reasoning for 1.1

ok, having speed read, it does look as though behind para 3 is a pretty para 1 like reasoning esp around 1992 regs, and it's all pretty adverse to 'us' tbh. Best take a couple of gulps and get back to work.

Para 358 and surrounds seem to be the heart of the matter on 1.1.

Quick conclusion: the court has found that the nurses had a right to be transphobic and that therefore the Trust's actions in having/enforcing a policy do amount to unwanted conduct and therefore indirect discrimination.

And it's now out...... www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ms...

But that may be clearer when full judgment is online.

Yes, that's my sense, but a lot to be unpicked in 1.1 when full reasoning online. BBC has a link up but it#s not working

Summary now on BBC site does indicate partial win for nurses but mostly related to poor processing of complaint by NHS Trust and accusations vs Rose herself appear to have been dismissed.

Yeah, me too tbh, though partly that's that the judgment will find in favour of the complainants over processing of complaint, which will then be spun again as total victory on actual substance of complaint.

Well 'me', anyway.

This is too radically undepressing, and will be ignored, I akcnowledge.