Dear Thangam Debbonaire MP,

I am writing as your constituent to urge you to support calls for an inquiry into the law banning assisted dying in England and Wales. I have been prompted to write after Dr Henry Marsh announced his advanced cancer diagnosis, and argued powerfully for the right to have the option to choose the time and manner of his own death. And in November 2020, the Court of Appeal refused Paul Lamb permission to challenge the law – which is likely to end the prospect of any change in the law as a result of a court decision. In other words, the matter is firmly one for Parliament to resolve.

I hope you can write on my behalf to the Secretary of State for Justice and Chairs of the Health, Justice, and Human Rights Select Committees, and call upon them to instigate a review into the law.

It has now been half a decade since MPs considered proposals to legalise assisted dying, and fifteen years since Parliament examined the law in any detail. The evidence available to scrutinise the current law and concerns about reform are now materially different. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to three factors. 

1. According to the UK Assisted Dying Coalition, at least one Briton each week now travels abroad for an assisted death. This represents a six-fold increase since Parliament last examined whether our laws are fit for purpose. 
2. Austria, Canada, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, and parts of the United States and Australia have changed their law since 2015, resulting in a wealth of new evidence and demonstrating that reform can be achieved in both a safe and compassionate manner. 
3. Medical opinion has dramatically shifted. Only recently, in the British Medical Association’s consultation on the matter – the largest survey of medical opinion on this issue in UK history – 50% of doctors said they personally support changing the law, with only 39% opposed, and if the law were to change, a majority favoured changing it for both the terminally ill and incurably suffering. 

In light of these developments and the record levels of public support for assisted dying, I believe it is time for Parliament to review this issue again and that informed debate should be underpinned by an inquiry into the law.

I hope I can rely on your support in requesting that the Secretary of State and various Committee Chairs instigate an inquiry or call upon Parliament to do so.

Dear Thangam Debbonaire MP,
I am writing to ask for your support in the campaign to ban conversion therapy – an alarmingly widespread practice that seeks to erase, repress, cure or change an individual’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Conversion therapy is taking place in medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious, and cultural communities.

Figures from the National LGBT Survey found that 7 per cent of LGBT+ people have been offered or undergone conversion therapy, with trans respondents almost twice as likely to have undergone or been offered conversion therapy (13 per cent). Figures also found asexual people to be at a higher risk of being offered or undergoing conversion therapy (10 per cent).

Half of respondents (51 per cent) who had undergone conversion therapy said it had been conducted by faith groups, and one in five (19 per cent) said it had been conducted by healthcare providers or medical professionals.

Right now, the law does not protect your constituents from this harmful practice. And there is no dedicated funding for victim and survivor support, whether through support charities, faith groups or mental health practitioners, to help overcome trauma and rebuild their lives.

Please write to Liz Truss, Minister for Women and Equalities, and Kemi Badenoch, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Equalities), and urge them to implement a full legislative ban as detailed below. You could also share your support by recording and sharing a #BanConversionTherapy video on social media, as hundreds of religious leaders have in a powerful show of support.

If we want to eradicate this insidious form of homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and acephobic abuse, we need a legislative ban to make conversion therapy illegal:

• Wherever it occurs â€“ Both in public and private spheres; in healthcare, religious, cultural and traditional settings or contexts; and for those who are threatened with being sent overseas to undergo so-called “conversion therapy”.
• Whoever is targeted â€“ Both children or adults; both those who have been coerced as well as those who have consented; any intervention that has the intention of changing, suppressing, converting or cancelling sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression.
• From the moment it’s spotted â€“ Banning the advertisement and promotion of these therapies both online and in public spaces.

Statutory provision of publicly funded specialist support services for current victims and survivors of historical cases is also essential.

I hope I can rely on your support to ban conversion therapy, so that we can continue to progress towards a world where all LGBTQIA+ people can live without shame or fear. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with you further and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Dear Thangam
I am writing to you today frustrated that once again proposed government policy has been announced via the medium of the right-wing press rather than being presented to parliament for discussion.
As someone who is not covered by any of the priority vaccination groups, and so am not expecting being called for vaccination before September (if at all) I was appalled to see suggestions that all restrictions should be lifted  by the end of April. Following such a course of action (which is against expert scientific advice) will lead to more deaths and more opportunities for virus mutations, including the likelihood of a vaccine-resistant strain emerging. I am not willing, along with millions of other people, to be literally sacrificed at the altar of Conservative economic policy.
Unless a zero covid strategy is adopted by this government, the NHS will continue to be overwhelmed and unable to return to normal standards of care. Tens of thousands more people will die and many more will suffer the effects of long covid. Further lockdowns will be required, damaging the education and mental health of the nation’s children (and adults), the economy, and amplifying existing inequalities.
I urge you to campaign for a zero covid strategy, as well as for the government to admit that covid is airborne and require mitigation in schools and all healthcare settings  (mandating both premium quality masks and adequate ventilation). 
The government has wasted the time given to it by the populace in these three lockdowns over the past year. Test and trace needs to be made fit for purpose to minimise further deaths, people need to be supported to self-isolate (both practically and financially), and the self-employed who have been excluded from Rishi Sunak’s financial aid schemes need to be supported.
I also urge you to resist calls for vaccine passports to be introduced. This will further discriminate against the younger part of the population who are already looking at a 6-month wait for vaccination, whilst also being disproportionately more likely to be at risk of catching the virus due to their jobs. If, as suggested, they are required for entry into shops and restaurants (rather than for entry into other countries) there will be the situation that staff working in these establishments would not be able to attend them under the scheme (whilst still being at risk from patrons).
Yours, in exhaustion

Dear Thangam Debbonaire,

I am writing to you to express my frustration with the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, and to request that you do everything within your power to hold them to account, particularly in regard to minimising infections by following scientific advice, and following all established protocols regarding awarding contracts paid for from public funds.

The people of the UK have given the government almost 7 months of their lives, since initial restrictions were brought into force on 16th March 2020. Since that date I, and many others, have left our houses only to exercise or buy essential supplies. I have not hugged any person outside of my household since that date, including my own sister, nor have I seen my nephew since January (and it now looks likely that it will be at least a full year until I can see him in person again).

Whilst some restrictions have been eased in recent months, it does not appear that the majority of these changes are based in scientific study to reduce infection rates, but rather were aimed at increasing economic activity with arbitrary conditions being set (why 6 and not 7? why the same indoor and out regardless of the fact that there is very little data to support outdoor transmission? why can strangers congregate in a pub but family members can’t meet in a house?).

I, like many others, have opted to continue to follow the science by restricting my interactions with others to be exclusively outdoors (which is becoming tougher as the weather conditions deteriorate going into Autumn and Winter) or online. I continue to social distance, to wash my hands, to wear a mask in any indoor space other than my own home. I no longer go to the gym, attend dance classes, practise circus skills with friends, or participate in the weekly parkrun (as either a runner/walker or volunteer). My social interactions are limited to a weekly outdoor hot drink with running friends (no more than 6 around a table), and an online group chat of my weekly juggling group (who are now homeless as our venue has been sold for housing).

I appreciate that I am in a luckier position than most, being retired and able to work from home in the creative arts, the pandemic has not hit me financially, and I maintain a roof over my head. But the strain of such a restricted existence is ongoing and amplified by the government’s mishandling of the pandemic.

I have watched whilst unelected advisors flout the rules and receive no reprimand. I have seen billions of pounds in contracts for PPE awarded to shell companies set up by Tory donors, and that PPE to be found not fit for use. I have watched other countries set-up effective test and trace services whilst yet more public money is handed out to consultants and for apps that do not work.

The increase in cases following the return of children to schools and students to universities was entirely predictable, the science has already shown that children can and do transmit the virus and that indoor spaces (particularly with poor ventilation, as most educational establishments are due to their age) are perfect locations for transmission. However, it appears to have taken the head of the NHS Test and Trace programme entirely by surprise. Perhaps if the government had appointed someone with a scientific background rather than a Jockey Club board member who presided over a large data breach in a previous position, things would be different.

The government has taken hundreds of millions of months of people’s lives, as well as costing lives through the late initial lockdown, causing unnecessary suffering to those who have lost loved ones and those whose medical treatment has been effectively suspended since March (with no light on the horizon as to when those treatments such as hip replacements, cataract surgery, breast reductions/enlargements/reconstructions, dental work, etc. might resume).

I, and many others like me, will continue to restrict our lives to try and restrict the spread of this virus, to try and reduce the infection rate and save lives (both from the immediate threat of severe illness and long-term consequences). We will do this not because the government tells us to, or because they tell us not to (they have lost the trust of the people through their arbitrary rules and consequence-free flouting of them), but because the science indicates that it is necessary.

If the government had followed what other countries have done since March: restricting arrivals into the country, introducing testing and quarantine for arrivals into the country, increasing testing levels to those necessary to accurately assess the level of infections and to guide targeted local restrictions, establishing an effective tracing system, recording contact data for all individuals using indoor spaces, mandating masks in all indoor spaces (including schools) for those not medically exempt, the current crisis where we are at the same level of hospitalisations as seen in March could have been avoided.

We cannot change the past, but I ask you as my Member of Parliament to hold the government’s feet to the fire over their failures over the past 7 months. I ask that you demand that contracts (particularly those not open to tender) are published within the government’s own deadline of 30 days, to expose the corruption of those contracts being awarded to unqualified Tory donors. I am aware that the government’s large majority makes it difficult to oppose them on legislation, but ask that you continue to use your platform as a voice for your constituents to raise awareness of their failings and corruption (which is often mostly missing from mainstream media), and to actively vote against damaging legislation rather than abstain.

Yours sincerely,

I’m a feminist, but (in true Guilty Feminist style) I feel that I need to explain what that means to me, as there is no consensus regarding the term.

Feminism, to me, is the stance that all humans are equal and should therefore have equal rights and access to services. It approaches the fight from a history of the suppression of these rights and access over the years to people identified as ‘women’.

Why have I put ‘women’ in quotes (just regular ones, not scare quotes). Well that’s because the term ‘woman/women’ has become more nuanced and complicated over the years.

It used to be that sex=gender and there were only two option (woman/female or man/male) and that was it. But the turtle moves and it is now (mostly) accepted that sex (which looks at the physical anatomy of an individual’s reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics) is different from gender (which is a social construct based on roles, behaviours, activities, etc).

At this point I want to apologise if I inadvertently cause someone offence by using the wrong terminology. If I do so, please understand it is an error and I would welcome the opportunity to learn to correct myself if I do offend and if someone has the time and energy to correct me.

Now, back to sex and gender. If we agree, and I hope that we do, that sex and gender are not the same thing (the first being biological, the second social), then it does not end there. Neither sex nor gender are binary, though some would seem to want them to be. Looking at sex first, whilst typically mammals (including humans) carrying XY chromosomes are labelled ‘male’ and those carrying XX chromosomes are labelled ‘female’ this is not a cut-and-dried, black-and-white, situation. An infant’s sex at birth is generally assigned by the midwife/doctor/nurse attending the birth after an examination of their genitalia. This may or may not match the infant’s chromosomes, hormones, other physical characteristics, etc. and in these situations this is typically (currently) labelled as ‘intersex’. So on the sex front it could be considered that there is a scale that at one end has female, goes through intersex, and terminates at male (going alphabetically, because that makes as much sense as any), not two boxes into which each individual must be crammed (cutting off appendages sometimes if deemed ‘necessary’). An individual may be anywhere on this scale.

On to gender. Again, the most recent prevailing view (historically and in some countries this is not the case) is that there are only two genders: the feminine and the masculine. Now, gender being socially constructed has even more scope for fluidity and confusion in understanding precisely because it is a social construct. It looks at the behaviours and attributes that a society determines to relate to the sex an individual is assigned at birth. This can obviously vary between and within societies as well as over time and geography. Since it is a social construct there is no reason why there should only be two genders, and slowly there has been more acceptance of gender fluidity and people identifying as gender neutral (or no gender).

So what does this have to do with feminism?

Well, as I said at the beginning:

Feminism, to me, is the stance that all humans are equal and should therefore have equal rights and access to services. It approaches the fight from a history of the suppression of these rights and access over the years to people identified as ‘women’.

The key part there being ‘people identified as ‘women”. The vast majority of discrimination relating to sex and gender is actually focused on the gender representation of an individual (since most people don’t go around checking genitalia, hormones or chromosomes before they start discriminating). In championing women’s rights through feminism I therefore include anyone who represents themselves as female regardless of the sex that they were assigned at birth when I use the word ‘woman’. I mention this because there has been a disturbing (to me) trend in some sections of feminism (I’m looking at you Germaine Greer) to only include those determined at birth to be female. This, obviously, excludes anybody intersex, transgender, gender fluid, gender neutral, and so on.

I do not see the benefit in using such a narrow, exclusionary, definition of what a woman is. What harm does it do to seeking equal rights and access to services for all people to include those who are subject to some of the worst discrimination? For me, if it isn’t intersectional then it isn’t something I want to fight for. 100 years ago some women (and more men) got the right to vote, but the fight for equal rights to vote didn’t stop there but continued to include all.

I say this from a position of incredible privilege. I have white, heterosexual, cis, middle class, able-bodied, home owning, well educated, and many other privileges. If it weren’t for the fact that I identify as female I would practically be the patriarchy.

I am also lucky enough not to have been the victim of domestic violence, which I mention because one of the arguments for women-only spaces are DV refuges. The vast majority of victims of domestic violence are people who identify as women at the hands of people who identify as men (though not exclusively). It has therefore been proposed that domestic violence refuges should be women-only on a sex (rather than gender) basis. Whilst it is important that the men who physically assault women should not be able to access those women, it does not follow that the people working in such refuges should only be women-by-sex-at-birth, or that only women-by-sex-at-birth should have access to the services. Instead security should be put in place to prevent those specific perpetrators from accessing those specific victims. Transwomen face the same, if not greater, dangers as women-by-sex. It is good to see that bans on transgender staff at women’s refuges are being overturned.

But does this is a fairly extreme example. It is common to hear someone suggest that a woman request a female doctor if they would feel more comfortable regarding an issue or procedure. I am all for people feeling comfortable when accessing any services (particularly with things like therapy after experiencing violence), but why is is considered acceptable to make a request based on gender (since I doubt the patient will check whether the medical professional is female-by-sex-at-birth, only that they present as female)? Is it similarly acceptable to make a request based on race or sexuality? I think we need to think more deeply about the lessons we are teaching women when making such suggestions, and by presenting DV refuges as women-by-sex-at-birth only.

One medical professional should be interchangeable with any other regardless of their sex, gender, race, sexuality, etc. Personally I don’t care what genitalia my doctor, dentist, or the person using the toilet cubicle next to me is. It very rarely comes up as any sort of issue in my day-to-day life. It does, however, run the risk of treating all women as to be trusted and all men as to be unsafe, when in reality any individual may be safe or unsafe.

The only time, in my opinion, when sex is relevant (as opposed to gender) is for certain medical issues, which should only ever come up between the patient and their medical professional (so Germaine Greer can sod off). Weirdly it still persists as a binary issue in sport (though huzzah for the AFL agreeing that Hannah Mouncey can play in the women’s leagues), and (it being awards season) award ceremonies such as the Oscars which has Best Actor and Best Actress but only one aware for Best Director (if you’re going to double up on the acting awards then why not double up on all?).

So, in conclusion, who cares what genitalia an individual has? If you don’t have equal rights or access to services, then I want my feminism to fight for those rights and access for you. I don’t care what your sex-at-birth is/was, I don’t care what your race is, your social status, your sexuality, etc.. And when I wear my feminist mittens, those Venus symbols are intended to include everyone who wants to claim them (and a pussy hat is so named because it looks like a cat). Include, don’t exclude. It is isn’t intersectional, it isn’t worth doing.

I am done with optical express, for good this time. Remember the fun and games I had in November. Well I was running short on contact lenses so thought I would give them a call and ask when my next delivery was. Apparently they’re not sending them out because they sent me a letter in May saying I needed an eye test.

1. I received no letter
2. I had an eye test back in 2009 – it is in their records as a contact lens test only but it was a full eye test.
3. The issue of the full eye test being registered as a contact lens test has been brought up twice now and each time they have promised that they would update their records.

Clearly they don’t want my money, so I will take my business elsewhere. I was planning on on having laser eye surgery anyway. Guess where I won’t be having it done.

So the financial institutions are in a bit of bother because they took on some bad debts. These bad debts have come back to bite them in the arse and once again the trading of bits of paper has been shown up as being risky.

It’s happened before with tech stocks, it will happen again with something else.

The thing that annoys me? A frankly massive amount of cash has been available to banks in the UK and worldwide to shore them up an ensure that the average guy in the street can get their savings out of their bank. How does the stock market react today? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7662572.stm
They panic.

The very same traders who are only too happy to swap bits of paper based on the potential future value of pork (and make considerable sums for themselves in the process) are now being the equivalent of the person at the newsagent who spends half an hour at the head of the queue umming and ahhing over whether to buy a Wispa (yay, Wispas are back).

The very people who have caused a lot of the problems by packaging bad debts as good are now sticking their heads in the sand and saying that they don’t want to play anymore. But you know what? It’s time to put your big boy pants on and earn your money by doing your job – keeping money flowing in the global economy.

It is no longer the case that “ordinary” people aren’t affected by what happens in the stock markets. Even those with no direct investments aren’t sheltered from risk with the value of pension funds being tied to stock values. Banks are now so scared that they just aren’t lending, and if they don’t get over it soon there are going to be a lot of small businesses failing because they can’t get a short-term loan to page wages all because they haven’t had their invoices paid yet (because that company can’t get a loan, etc.). Small business can take larger businesses down.

The housing market hasn’t slowed down. It’s stopped. If people can’t get a mortgage because the banks won’t lend out of fear then the only people able to buy are those who are cash rich. I can’t move purely because the people who have been interested in buying my house (and there has been positive feedback) can’t get a bank to stop sitting on their hands and actually loan out the money they have specifically been given to loan out.

Somebody needs to take the plunge and do something. I predict the first lender to start giving out decent mortgages again to get a lot of business (there are plenty of people looking to move, people who aren’t high risk) which will be good for them. People haven’t stopped wanting to buy houses, they’re just been prevented from doing so by a bunch of scared, chubby cats who are going to be getting supermarket brand food instead of the premium stuff for a while.

In other news I have been organising a convention, flying a Tiger Moth, and generally trying to get on with life (whilst being stuck in financial treacle).