8 Comments
User's avatar
H Polyage's avatar

The illustrative hyperbole had me worried for a while. Good read!

Janey R's avatar

Great piece Michael, as per usual. Interestingly, as I read it, I thought to myself OK, this doesn’t seem to be written in Michael’s usual ultra professional legal tone. Then I got to the final paragraph and all became clear. Point well made.

JH's avatar

Oof! Take that, Ms Lockwood.

Sidsy's avatar

I love that you have not held back in this piece! It is exactly what Lockwood deserves.

Nearly spat my tea out at "It reads like it was written by a coked-up AI" :-))

Lorna Campbell's avatar

Hi Michael, thank you for that explanation which was as much fun reading as you said you enjoyed writing it.

What I have problems with is that the law is the law, but the criminal law appears to have bowed out in the case of these men who trespass on female spaces or has it been incorporated into statute law? I'm thinking of voyeurism, indecent exposure, lewd and libidinous practices, etc. Have all the once common law lower level sexual crimes been codified into statute? Or have the criminal aspects been superseded by statute? These men often behave as if these crimes never existed at all and behave with impunity almost.

IWontWheesht's avatar

Coked up AI! Hahahaha

Un-thinking gender's avatar

Nice, good fun! Yes, what would be the point of having sex equality law if the practice of it (separate- & single-sex services & provisions) didn’t apply to those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment? Gender reassignment is an additional protected characteristic to sex someone might have, not a replacement.

Dusty Masterson's avatar

Thanks, Michael for demolishing this nonsense.

Have cross posted

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/tales-from-tintagel

Dusty