Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Sadly, that's modern politics.

davidjay wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2026 11:56 am Sadly, that's modern politics.

And that is why they'll never achieve their aims until they change their tactics.

Given the rollback of rights going on at the moment, would it really be a surprise if being more aggressive wasn’t the response?

For example, you have a millionaire openly funding a group that seeks out other organisations doing no harm and just happily getting on, like the ladies swimming ponds in London, and taking them to court to enforce laws they don’t want to and their members haven’t asked for, with the sole aim of isolating and making life worse for a few people in that group.

If I were in a group others wanted to make disappear primarily to ease their own distaste, I might be inclined to be a bit aggressive myself.

I suppose it's an improvement on what the good law project came up with.

https://www.scenemag.co.uk/good-law-pro ... -backlash/

Good Law Project has apologised to members of the trans community and withdrawn its ‘Monster’ campaign after concerns were raised about how it had been received.

In a statement issued by executive director Jo Maugham, the legal campaign organisation said it had listened to criticism from the trans community and instructed its media partners, including Scene, to remove the campaign.

The campaign, titled Monster, was created by artist Martin Firrell and was intended to address what the organisation described as opposition to trans people's rights, spaces and joy. According to the Good Law Project, the campaign was designed to speak primarily to cisgender audiences and had been positively received during testing with allies and members of the team involved in its development, including trans people.

With allies like this who needs enemies?

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2026 6:43 pm Given the rollback of rights going on at the moment, would it really be a surprise if being more aggressive wasn’t the response?

For example, you have a millionaire openly funding a group that seeks out other organisations doing no harm and just happily getting on, like the ladies swimming ponds in London, and taking them to court to enforce laws they don’t want to and their members haven’t asked for, with the sole aim of isolating and making life worse for a few people in that group.

If I were in a group others wanted to make disappear primarily to ease their own distaste, I might be inclined to be a bit aggressive myself.

Yup, stuff like that and the Park Run stuff, the aim of anti trans people (and that is what they are) is to eradicate them from society.

Sorry but that's the simple fact.

And that, I fear, is the truth. It's gone beyond Sharon Davies not wanting trans women in the Olympics or Linehan moaning about a TV episode being cancelled. They want trans people in hiding.

Amnesty's apology in full.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/latest/an-ap ... july-2026/

We apologise for the publication of the briefing “A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK.” This document should never have been published, and full responsibility for this error rests with Amnesty International UK.

The briefing was taken down within 48 hours of publication, as soon as management were notified of its existence, was not actively promoted, and will not be republished. We have an ongoing internal investigation into how this briefing came to be published.

Whilst we do not share the views of all these organisations, we recognise the concerns raised by those labelled as “anti-rights” in the document. To be clear: this labelling does not represent our institutional position, and we apologise for its inclusion. In particular, we apologise to Beira’s Place and other groups, which we categorised as gender critical organisations, which we should not have collectively labelled as anti-rights. We have also taken down an earlier more discursive briefing (entitled Like A Snowball) which also referenced a wide range of organisations.

AIUK holds itself to the highest standards of research, evidence and editorial oversight in all its publications. We have concluded that this briefing fell significantly short of those standards. We will commission an independent external review to learn from this moment.

AIUK remains fully committed to defending the human rights, dignity, and equality of all marginalised groups, including women, girls, and members of the trans community.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2026 6:00 pm Amnesty's apology in full.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/latest/an-ap ... july-2026/

We apologise for the publication of the briefing “A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK.” This document should never have been published, and full responsibility for this error rests with Amnesty International UK.

The briefing was taken down within 48 hours of publication, as soon as management were notified of its existence, was not actively promoted, and will not be republished. We have an ongoing internal investigation into how this briefing came to be published.

Whilst we do not share the views of all these organisations, we recognise the concerns raised by those labelled as “anti-rights” in the document. To be clear: this labelling does not represent our institutional position, and we apologise for its inclusion. In particular, we apologise to Beira’s Place and other groups, which we categorised as gender critical organisations, which we should not have collectively labelled as anti-rights. We have also taken down an earlier more discursive briefing (entitled Like A Snowball) which also referenced a wide range of organisations.

AIUK holds itself to the highest standards of research, evidence and editorial oversight in all its publications. We have concluded that this briefing fell significantly short of those standards. We will commission an independent external review to learn from this moment.

AIUK remains fully committed to defending the human rights, dignity, and equality of all marginalised groups, including women, girls, and members of the trans community.

Well that's put a target on Amnesty's back.

Now let's see what happens the next time Amnesty say anything at all that can be seen as pro-trans, or against the antis. Because if you keep running, they'll keep chasing.

The problem with paying Danegeld is that the Dane keeps coming back.

Samanfur wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2026 9:28 pm The problem with paying Danegeld is that the Dane keeps coming back.

Do you like Kipling, or have you never Kipled?

The right wing media have used the last few days of the silly season to launch an attack on Parkrun for not doing enough to tackle transgender runners taking part in their events.

I have been involved in Parkrun for about 9 years as a runner and a volunteer and in that time the issue of trans-gender runners as only been mentioned once and that was because Mail had doe an article about it.

As things stand when you sign up to Parkrun you tick a box to say if you are male or female. When you get you result on a Saturday you are told how you have done overall and how you did against other males/females and how you did compared to other people in your age group..

A campaign has started to try and get Parkrun to make all participants to register using the gender they were at birth. But it is impossible to see how this would be policed. All events rely on volunteers to make sure they run smoothly and the main organisation probably only has about a dozen full-time staff. The only way you could probably vet the process would be to get people to submit a copy of a passport or driving licence, birth certificate or a note from a doctor. This would be an administrative nightmare.
When the French government insisted that all runners should have a note from their doctor in order to take part Parkrun in France ground to a halt and has never resumed.

As well as doing Parkrun I also take part in other running events where you have to pay an entry fee but their registration process is identical to the registration process as Parkrun so it seems ridiculous that Parkrun is being singled out when other running events are run in a similar way.

Isn’t the essence of Park Run that it is entirely non-competitive, in any event? So gender, at birth or otherwise, is more or less irrelevant.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2026 11:55 pm Isn’t the essence of Park Run that it is entirely non-competitive, in any event? So gender, at birth or otherwise, is more or less irrelevant.

Of course it is, but it's also a target. Once they've either forced a rule change or, more likely, caused it to be scrapped, they'll move on. Thousands of people will be less fit and deprived of some harmless enjoyment but a couple of them might be trans so it's all worth it.

It clearly does seem to be an attempt to try and shutdown Parkrun. I had never heard of the running club that is supposedly behind the latest campaign so I suspect that it has been set up purely for the purpose of attacking Parkrun.