“This is a worker’s rights crisis for the trans community,” a spokesperson for the Trans Solidarity Alliance said.

UK: Judges References “Two Unyeilding Ideologies” – in Latest “Trans Rights” Ruling! (14.2.2026)

Lastly, I would say that People with Disabilities have to use “asexual” toilets – with the idea that the ordinary “Male” and “Female” toilets should not be altered to accommodate disability (this is viewed as inconveniencing the non-disabled). The Disabled have no right to expect single-sex toilets – as such an adaptation would cost “too much”. However, and simultaneously, Women’s’ toilets are altered to accommodate pregnant women and women with babies – sometimes with an entirely separate and spacious area designed for breast-feeding and nappy-changing (in these separate spaces – both parents are allowed in together – or one or the other without comment – meaning men “share” women’s toileting areas). Quite often, the Disabled Toilets are co-opted by the able-bodied to act as spare toilets for themselves – or for mother and baby rooms – thus depriving the Disabled of the limited toilet-spaces the law has granted them after decades of campaigning for equal rights. The Disabled are continuously told it is unreasonable to expect better toileting conditions – or to keep the non-Disabled “out” of their areas. Of course, the Disabled are excluded from the “Trans” Vs “CIS” turf-war that is going on – but their plight does shed some light on this issue.

Court highlights a raft of errors in High Court judgment after wife hid more than 70% of her wealth in pre-nuptial agreement.

UK: Court of Appeal Overturns Ruling Upholding Pre-Nuptial Agreement – Due to Wife’s ‘Fraudulent Non-Disclosure’! (3.8.2025)

The ruling marks a rare appellate intervention in the context of pre-nuptial agreements. Lady Justice King stressed that the court’s conclusion should not be seen as undermining Radmacher, nor as any shift in the law: “So long as there is no statutory scheme, Radmacher will continue to bind this court. […] Pre-nuptial agreements are about the autonomy of the parties to determine for themselves what should be the fair outcome in the event that their marriage fails.” However, the judge continued, where the parties themselves set out a disclosure regime in the agreement, any deliberate misrepresentation of that disclosure – particularly when induced by one party – is liable to vitiate the agreement. “[W]ilful or fraudulent breach of that agreement […] is entirely different from the position in Radmacher,” she concluded.

Fighting Western Racism in PTRC!

China: Court Adjourns Hearing on “Hong Kong Separatist” song! (25.6.2024)

A government spokesman stressed that “the injunction complements existing laws and serves to clarify to members of the public that the acts mentioned above may constitute criminal offenses, and they should not take chances and attempt to break the law”.

The SAR government respects and values the rights and freedoms protected by the Basic Law, but freedom of speech is not absolute, the spokesman added.

In order to safeguard national security, the application is necessary, reasonable and legal, meeting the requirements of the relevant human rights legislation and being complementary to the existing law, the spokesman said.