Road for people and cyclist only

The only interpretation im considering is the supreme courts. By theirs, the concept of a biological sex defined space for toilets doesnt work.

The supreme court also didnt mention toilets. Not once.

Given unisex toilets exist, in some shopping centers etc., how can it be proportionate to ban trans men or women from other toilets? Makes no sense to me.

Search for toilet here https://iandunt.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about

Right but they’re usually doing something complicated to pay less tax.

Getting that wrong and underpaying is much worse than doing something complicated to deal with a complicated family issue, and the advisors missing an incredibly tough point combining multiple specialities.

I dont really get why this is seen as an issue. This is fiendishly complex law that can easily be missed, and the trust was set up to try and give a child their own “stuff” as divorce made the parents doing it impossible.

Thus is just a non story.

Id rather the press was asking about the idcards that starmer has gone and raised again. Or their mad plans to ban vpns(?)

You wot mate?