Society

Stonewall UK was established in 1989 in response to the now infamous Section 28, which prohibited councils from intentionally promoting homosexuality or teaching about the acceptability of homosexuality in schools. In the years since its founding, Section 28 has been repealed, the age of consent has been levelled, and equal marriage was secured in 2013. In other words, the key political goals of lesbians, gay and bisexual people have been secured in the UK. This lack of a serious and meaningful campaign goal perhaps explains why Stonewall’s behaviour has been far less edifying in recent years. In 2015 Stonewall extended their remit to campaign for trans equality, and in doing

With England returning to a full national lockdown, calls for a different response — a so-called ‘segmentation strategy’ — have also reappeared. The idea behind such an approach is that a ‘vulnerable’ section of the population is effectively sealed off from the rest of society. Meanwhile, SARS-CoV2 is allowed to spread among the remaining population, generating herd immunity which will eventually protect the entire population. This is the core principle of the Great Barrington Declaration, which has attracted a large amount of media attention since its inception a few weeks ago. This approach has had considerable appeal to those seeking to minimise the impact of the pandemic for a variety of reasons, be they

The graph presented by chief scientific officer Sir Patrick Vallance during Saturday’s press briefing suggested that, in the absence of a new lockdown, deaths from Covid-19 could reach 4,000 a day by Christmas. To put this scenario in context, deaths in the first wave back in April peaked at just over 1,000 a day. Back in spring, a pre-publication copy of Neil Ferguson’s paper — the Imperial College modelling of Covid-19 deaths which sent Britain into the first lockdown — was released, so we could all see the assumptions and reasoning behind it. Saturday’s graph did not even reveal the source of the 4,000 deaths a day claim — although

How, then, does Britain treat its Jews? It’s a question that I, and many others in the community, once believed had been settled to the point of irrelevance. But when Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015, we realised that maybe the story wasn’t quite so simple. Things are clearer now. Last week the Equalities and Human Rights Commission finally released its report into anti-Semitism in the Labour party. It unsurprisingly damned Labour. Perhaps more surprising – though entirely in keeping with his personality – was Jeremy Corbyn’s reaction. The prevalence of anti-Semitism in the party was, he said ‘dramatically overstated for political reasons.’ That Corbyn rejected charges of anti-Semitism by

Of all the stupid things the BBC has done lately, their latest diktat must be the stupidest: a global warning to staff that they are subject to disciplinary action if they’re caught ‘virtue signalling’. Here is poor old Aunty, wetting her bloomers at the prospect of another roughing up from the mean girls in Downing Street – and in the process adopting a fatuous culture-wars catchphrase as if it were some gold standard of political neutrality. As I’ve argued here recently about ‘woke’, the term ‘virtue signalling’ is not an argument but a sneer. When you say somebody is ‘virtue signalling’, you’re not bothering to commit yourself to an argument

Given recent stories about the police putting your door in if you have more than six people over on Christmas day, it seems almost quaint to be talking about Stop and Search as an abuse of state power. Yet the release of statistics this week that show black people are nine times more likely to have this power used against them in the street, ought to give us pause for thought. Stop and Search is an unavoidably intrusive state activity. You can be stopped by the police if they have a reasonable suspicion that you have illicit items in your possession, such as guns, drugs or equipment to be used