iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Jake @jake2500.com · 07/09/2026

Do they mean *that* Starship Troopers? The one that's a satire of fascism and authoritarianism, with uniforms based on the actual nazis? They've taken that as a serious suggestion? Irony is dead.

Zoomed in screenshot. It says "Design inspiration. Inspired by the discipline and functionality of the starship trooper uniform."

2182

Jake @jake2500.com · 28/08/2026

So NHS authorities are now just ignoring high court judgements? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_W...

A screenshot from the linked wikipedia article. The highlighted section says "The ruling means that it is illegal for any health authority in England or Wales to put a blanket ban on gender-affirming surgery relating to transgender people."

061

Jake @jake2500.com · 28/08/2026

I hear "lanyard class" a lot from the right wing press. I went to one of their career websites. Imagine my shock and horror when I saw lanyards.

A workplace photo from the News Corp UK & Ireland Limited careers website. There are at least lanyards clearly visible in the photo.

080

Jake @jake2500.com · 07/08/2026

The UK government's argument to the ECtHR in I v The United Kingdom (where prisons and hospital wards were partly argued) is no longer true. It's amazing how far back we've regressed so quickly. hudoc.echr.coe.int/spa#{%22item...

A screenshot from the government's argument to the ECtHR in I v The United Kingdom. It says "48. As regards the specific difficulties claimed by the applicant, the Government submitted that she was able to live a female social role, free from State interference. There was no statutory or case-law restriction on the applicant dressing as she chose. She has been able to change her names. Were she to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the question of whether she would be held in a male or a female prison would be dealt with on the basis of what would be appropriate to the individual circumstances of her case. In the case of hospitalisation, it would be for the hospital staff to determine where she should be accommodated. The Government noted that on the basis of the applicant's appearance and social identity, she would be likely to be placed on a female ward and that it would be unlikely that the hospital would see or be influenced by her birth certificate."

13510

Jake @jake2500.com · 11/07/2026

Source 3.15.22 www.secamb.nhs.uk/wp-content/u...

Screenshot of the south east coast ambulance service policy supporting trans employees. It says "Toilets and other facilities: The individual can use the facilities congruent
to their gender identity.
3.15.22. Where required potential users of the facilities should have trans awareness
training to help them to be properly prepared, to welcome any trans person
who is starting to use the facilities. It is not appropriate to request that a
trans person use accessible toilet facilities. If others do not wish to share
facilities with a trans person, then they, rather than the trans person should
be directed to accessible facilities."

040

Jake @jake2500.com · 09/07/2026

The explanatory memorandum says a revocation order of the existing code needs to be made first. That also follows a negative procedure, and will take some time. Then the commencement order. Looks like about 3 additional weeks to finish all the steps.

Screenshot of paragraph 5.11 from the explanatory memorandum published alongside the draft code of practice. It says "5.11 If the new Code is approved, there will be a further two statutory instruments to complete the process:

a revocation order made under section 15(3) of the 2006 Act (“the revocation order”): the 2011 Code must be revoked under section 15(3) by means of a negative procedure statutory instrument; and
a commencement order made under section 14(8) (“the commencement order”): this statutory instrument commences the new Code. It doesn’t require parliamentary procedure and requires only to be signed by the Minister".

110

Jake @jake2500.com · 30/06/2026

Exactly right. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee put the timeline together here publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5902/ld...

Screenshot from a report by the House of Lords secondary legislation committee. It says "The draft Code is subject to the negative procedure and can only be issued if neither House passes a resolution disapproving it within 40 days. This 40-day period will end on 9 July. To bring the draft Code into effect two further instruments are required: an order to commence the new Code (not subject to parliamentary procedure) and another to revoke the existing Code (subject to the negative procedure). In a scenario where neither House resolves that the Code be not made, we asked when the Government expects to lay the commencement and revocation orders. The OEO told us it intends to lay the revocation order “as soon as is practical” after 9 July, and that, once laid, there will be a 22-day period before the existing Code is revoked and the new Code is commenced."

041

Jake @jake2500.com · 25/06/2026

It does appear like the current broad definition is not what the minister intends, but it does look like the draft bill doesn't really say what she says here. Your change would at least come closer to the minister's intent.

170

Jake @jake2500.com · 25/06/2026

The bill bans "abusive conversion therapy" symmetrically in both directions. So in theory a bad actor could try that.

(2) “Conversion practice” means (subject to subsection (3)) any conduct carried out by a person towards an individual with the intention of—

(a) causing the individual—
(i) to have or not to have,
(ii) to believe that they have or do not have,

a sexual orientation or a particular sexual orientation; or

(b) causing the individual—
(i) to have or not to have,
(ii) to believe that they have or do not have,

a transgender identity or a particular transgender identity.

170

Jake @jake2500.com · 25/06/2026

So it's not "legitimate" healthcare to try to change someone's identity? Better let the health secretary know.

031

Jake @jake2500.com · 25/06/2026

The bill has no loopholes... then lists loopholes.

120

Jake @jake2500.com · 25/06/2026

Another manifesto commitment thrown away. The Labour 2024 manifesto said "so-called conversion therapy is abuse". This bill now says "Actually, it's only abuse in these narrow circumstances which is effectively never". Screenshot from their 2024 manifesto:

A screenshot from the Labour 2024 manifesto. It says "So-called conversion therapy is abuse – there is no other word for it – so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity."

0102

Jake @jake2500.com · 25/06/2026

Thanks you to @warinderjussmp.bsky.social for asking this important question.

100

Jake @jake2500.com · 25/06/2026

Conversion practices draft bill Action by the NHS (or any healthcare professional) is excluded unless it "falls far below the standards reasonably expected".

Screenshot from the draft conversion practices bill. it says "(3) Conduct which—

(a) is carried out by a person towards an individual with such an intention, but
(b) is carried out in the course of providing health care services to the individual concerned,
is not a conversion practice unless the person acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position".

250

Jake @jake2500.com · 24/06/2026

Yep. It's like they are not honest actors and are just driven by bigotry and hate. Cass's intervention this week is the most minimal of minimal things, and even that's too much. Actual footage of Cass giving advice to the government about the trial:

030

Jake @jake2500.com · 24/06/2026

Looks like my prediction came true in under 10 seconds 🔮

000

Jake @jake2500.com · 22/06/2026

There's some other admin, like the equalities minister has to also revoke the old code and issue some instruments which has a clock on it, but that is just admin and without parliament. HoL Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee explains it here publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5902/ld...

183

Jake @jake2500.com · 22/06/2026

Sounds like Starmer is finishing on one final broken promise for old time's sake. I'm not disappointed this time though.

Headline from just 3 days ago. It says "Starmer says he will stand in any Labour leadership contest against Burnham. Prime minister suggests he will not ‘walk away’ despite Burnham’s comfortable victory in Makerfield byelection"

060

Jake @jake2500.com · 17/06/2026

It just 4 short years ago when conservatives fell for the hoax that "the woke mob" is getting rid of the snickers "dick vein"? Now look at them!

An unknown news reader with a face that appears confused by the concept of breathing with a ticker underneath saying "CANCEL CULTURE: SNICKERS REMOVING BELOVED 'DICK VEIN'".

010

Jake @jake2500.com · 12/06/2026

Hell, the former chair is now part of Policy Exchange's "Project 2029" that proposed repealing the human rights act and equality act. the foxes are running the henhouse. policyexchange.org.uk/project-2029/

Screenshot from the Policy Exchange project 2029 website. It says "Human Rights Law, Judicial Review, and International Law. Equality law, European human rights law and international law now distort almost every aspect of public policy, limiting Parliament’s freedom to make law and Ministers’ power to act. How should the UK go about freeing itself from the European Convention on Human Rights? Should the Human Rights Act be replaced by a Bill of Rights or repealed without replacement? How should judicial review be reformed to enable effective government? When should Ministers be obliged to undertake consultations? Should the Equality Act be amended or repealed? Which treaties should the UK leave? Which should it reform? How can Ministers who prioritise the national interest engage effectively with international law?"

020

Jake @jake2500.com · 12/06/2026

It’s interesting to see what the EHRC opted to not include in the code of practice. For example, misgendering might not be harassment anymore in their view...

Screenshot from the EHRC code of practice consultation response. It says “There has been no legal determination of whether, or in what circumstances, misgendering still constitutes harassment following the ruling in the case of For Women Scotland. Case law is likely to develop on this point. Therefore, no change has been made to this example.”

000

Jake @jake2500.com · 11/06/2026

Very pleased to see @nadiawhittomemp.bsky.social today pushing the government to allow a debate about the draft code of practice on government time. Keep pushing! 👏👏👏👏👏

2185

Jake @jake2500.com · 10/06/2026

Thank you so much for championing human rights in this area. The Government and EHRC's position seems completely incompatible with Goodwin, not to mention more recent ECtHR cases.

Very dense screenshot from the Christine Goodwin v The United Kingdom ECtHR judgement. Due to the character limit, it cannot all be posted here in alt text. A short summary of it is that trans people have the right to autonomy and to establish their identity as human beings. They cannot be put into an intermediate zone. And this is not something subject to the passage of time. The court specifically says "Nonetheless, the very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom" and "In the twenty first century the right of transsexuals to personal development and to physical and moral security in the full sense enjoyed by others in society cannot be regarded as a matter of controversy requiring the lapse of time to cast clearer light on the issues involved".

The court also acknowledges that there may be practical difficulties poses by this judgement, but it rejects them as being an excuse for denying trans people their rights. The court specifically says "No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest has indeed been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transsexuals and, as regards other possible consequences, the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost".

1150

Jake @jake2500.com · 09/06/2026

tl;dr EHRC: "We've managed for decades" MP: "those were trans inclusive" EHRC: "oh shit, not like that"

87311

Jake @jake2500.com · 02/06/2026

Why has @timfarron.bsky.social also withdrawn his signature?

A screenshot of the withdrawn signatures from early day motion 240 to reject the draft Code of Practice on Services, public functions and associations. It shows Tim Farron MP and Andrew George MP have withdrawn their signatures.

110

Jake @jake2500.com · 01/06/2026

But they were totally never close friends, right?

A screenshot of the guardian article where Wes Streeting claims “I was never a close friend of Peter Mandleson”. There is a picture of the liar in the bottom right corner.

230

Jake @jake2500.com · 01/06/2026

I know! It's madness! Here's the FA's 2015 policy on trans players. (Not necessarily agreeing with the policy, but it was an exception available to them at the time) web.archive.org/web/20201112...

An screenshot of the FA's 2015 policy for trans players. The text says "When considering a trans player’s application, The FA will make a
presumption that an individual’s application will be approved if he or she is able to satisfy the hormone-based requirements and provide the evidence set out below. If these requirements are met, The FA will only refuse an application if The FA decides in its absolute discretion that it is necessary to refuse an application to ensure (1) the applicant’s and fellow players’ safety and/or (2) fair competition."

010

Jake @jake2500.com · 28/05/2026

It wouldn't be if the law was actually followed. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/1... www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equ...

A screenshot of the EHRC website about what qualifies as a protected philosophical belief. Highlighted part says "The Equality Act also says that a belief must also be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not affect other people’s fundamental rights."

1232

Jake @jake2500.com · 24/05/2026

Not sure what the word "draft" means here according to Akua 🤔 www.gov.uk/government/p...

Screenshot of the government page showing the draft code of practice. It clearly says "draft".

0180

Jake @jake2500.com · 22/05/2026

Given how the draft code of practice comes into force (automatically after 40 days like a negative procedure), any Member of Parliament who doesn't support a fatal prayer motion against the draft code is giving their tacit approval of it. www.gov.uk/government/p...

A screenshot from the relevant part of the explanatory memorandum issued with the draft code of practice. It says "5.8 Under section 14(7) and (8), if the Code is approved by the Secretary of State, she is responsible for laying it before Parliament. Whilst not a statutory instrument in itself, the new draft follows a similar procedure to a draft negative statutory instrument. The Code will be laid as an Act paper.

5.9 The Secretary of State approved the draft Code on 5 May and it was laid before Parliament on 21 May. Following the laying, there is a 40-day period that allows for Parliamentary scrutiny of the new draft Code.

5.10 If there is no resolution within 40 days by either House moving a fatal prayer motion against the draft Code, the EHRC may “issue” the Code under section 14(8). However, the new Code will not be in force until it is commenced by order. "

0124

Jake @jake2500.com · 22/05/2026

Their own equality impact assessment says this negatively impacts equality protections on the basis of gender reassignment, disability, sex, and others. How can that be an acceptable outcome for the EHRC or the Office for Equality and Opportunity? www.gov.uk/government/p...

Screenshot of the conclusion of the equality impact assessment of the draft code of practice. The highlighted text says "However, the exception to this would be the gender reassignment protected characteristic, where we do think there are negative impacts. We assess that updates following the FWS ruling may also negatively impact other characteristics, including disability and sex."

080

Jake @jake2500.com · 21/05/2026

I made an attempt to look back at the Labour and Conservative manifestos, because we were sold "vote Labour to get rid of the tories"... well they implemented every anti-trans policy in the Conservative manifesto and more! It's now out of date and even worse.

A table of labour and conservative policies in their last election manifestos. It shows that Labour have actually completed, and in some cases exceeded the Conservative Party policies.

03613

Jake @jake2500.com · 21/05/2026

"we do think there are negative impacts" from the horse's mouth. Oh, and it impacts sex and disability negatively. www.gov.uk/government/p...

Screenshot of the conclusion of the impact assessment of the draft code of practice. The last paragraph says "Generally, we have assessed that changes which apply across all protected characteristics contribute to the pursuit of the 3 aims in the PSED, and have a positive impact overall. However, the exception to this would be the gender reassignment protected characteristic, where we do think there are negative impacts. We assess that updates following the FWS ruling may also negatively impact other characteristics, including disability and sex."

021

Jake @jake2500.com · 21/05/2026

And how do you work it out? Vibes I guess 🤮 Oh, and if you learn of the existence of a GRC and tell anyone, you might be committing a criminal offence. Good luck.

A quote from the draft code of practice
It says "13.179 Where there remains a genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a request for an individual to confirm their sex, then the service provider, person performing public functions or association should consider what action is proportionate in the circumstances. There is no type of official record or document in the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex. For example, sex on passports and driving licences may be changed with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and birth certificates may reflect the acquired gender of someone who has a GRC. Therefore, it is unlikely to be proportionate or practical to ask for further evidence of a person’s sex. In such circumstances, it is likely to be necessary to weigh up the relevant factors to decide whether to exclude the individual from the service or association or to permit them to continue to access it."

0173

Jake @jake2500.com · 21/05/2026

Other legislation... like the Human Rights Act? 🤔

Screenshot of the draft code
It is "2.51 This Code only relates to the application of the Equality Act 2010. It does not deal with the implications of the For Women Scotland judgment for the application of section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to any other legislation."

020

Jake @jake2500.com · 06/12/2025

Some people aren’t “biological” at all it seems.

Screenshot of a paragraph of The Times article. It says

“They’re concerned their rights are being taken away. Their anger should be directed at those snake-oil salesmen who sold them the fiction they had rights that have been taken away, and not ever explained that rights are balanced. And that in some areas, such as discrimination law, the rights of biological people hold.”

In the imagine “biological people” is highlighted.

010

Jake @jake2500.com · 14/10/2025

Does the EHRC lawyer not understand how the GRA works? This argument would render a GRC & GRA meaningless in all cases. It ignores the obvious fact that you can in principle establish most people's "certified sex" w/o breaching confidentially by looking at their (maybe amended) birth certificate.

A screenshot from the https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l-fWW9p7Tv9RFJamYVB93ItDN_jtG8Nq/view the EHRC's argument in the GLP case. It says:
"
In considering whether the EqA made "provisions" under section 9(3), the Supreme Court thus considered whether a "certificated sex meaning" would produce incoherent or unworkable results. In that respect it pointed out that the fact a person has a GRC may not be know: section 22 of the GRA (referred to at FWS2 [78]) preserves its confidentiality: [173]. It also pointed out that a person with a GRC may or may not "pass" as trans: it is not necessary to obtain a GRC that one has physically transitioned to any extent: [26].
"

100

Jake @jake2500.com · 07/10/2025

Yes, it takes a bit more effort because the EHRC website seems to block bots scrapping their pages. In the top left corner you can choose "captures". Then pick one that worked. They are colour coded on the archive website.

Screen shot of the top-left corner of an internet archive page. The "captures" button is underlined.

120

Jake @jake2500.com · 05/10/2025

Actually don’t worry, nothing to see here 😉 \s

A screenshot from the website linked above. One of the speaker’s bios says “She is a Commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. She speaks in a personal capacity.”

020

Jake @jake2500.com · 28/09/2025

Maybe talk to constituents like me instead of talking amongst yourselves.

Classic Principle Skinner meme where he considers whether he is out of touch, but concludes that it is the children that are wrong. The caption has been changed to refer to the Labour party instead.
It says sarcastically "Is the labour party out of touch? No, it's the constituents who are wrong!"

0615

Jake @jake2500.com · 26/09/2025

Here's the wording of the relevant part of The Equality Act 2006 section 14 (7-8). When it is laid before parliament it will be in the Common's library for us to see. Then the 40 day clock starts for parliament to reject it. I've asked my MP to challenge this. Any additional pressure is vital!

Screenshot of The Equality Act 2006 section 14 (7-8). It says:
Before issuing a code under this section the Commission shall submit a draft to the Secretary of State, who shall—
(a)if he approves the draft—
(i)notify the Commission, and
(ii)lay a copy before Parliament, or
(b)otherwise, give the Commission written reasons why he does not approve the draft.
(8)Where a draft is laid before Parliament under subsection (7)(a)(ii), if neither House passes a resolution disapproving the draft within 40 days—
(a)the Commission may issue the code in the form of the draft, and
(b)it shall come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.

163

Jake @jake2500.com · 07/09/2025

And as always, they are lying about the ECHR! www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-09...

Screenshot from the article which says “Since 1980, the European
Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in only 13 removal cases, and just four of those concerned family life. In relation to immigration rules more broadly, the Court has only three times ruled that the UK's immigration rules violate the ECHR in the past 45 years.”

100

Jake @jake2500.com · 04/09/2025

The linked article does a fantastic job of highlighting this!

1106

Jake @jake2500.com · 12/06/2025

If only there was a resource to help Faulkner understand. Perhaps a resource that only cites one example. I guess that's too much to ask...

0539