Mick Hartley

Some new information on the case of the Darlington nurses:

A previously undisclosed internal email from a senior NHS executive has come to light in the ongoing legal case involving female nurses at Darlington Memorial Hospital, who allege their rights were violated by a policy allowing a biologically male staff member identifying as female to access the women’s changing room.

The email, dated 23 May 2024, was sent by the then Executive Director of Nursing, Noel Scanlon. It was sent to the Trust’s Director of Workforce, Andrew Thacker, who was cross-examined on its contents and context by the nurses’ KC, Niazi Fetto.

The email reveals deep internal concern about the policy’s implications. In the message, the executive wrote:

“This strikes me as entirely self-inflicted politically correct nonsense which will end up in the tabloids. If the individual is not respectful of his/her/their female colleagues then I think we do need to take management action as opposed to asking the majority of the female staff to make alternative changing arrangements which I believe is the advice Tracey and Andrea have given based upon our current policies.”

When the nurses went public with their story on June 23 after the Trust took no action, an emergency meeting was called on 28 June and on 1 July Noel Scanlon’s ‘retirement’ was suddenly announced by the Trust.

The statement reveals that the policy was not only viewed as harmful but also internally contested at the highest levels of management.

The nurses, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, are suing the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust for sexual harassment, discrimination, and breaches of privacy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lead claimant Bethany Hutchison has described the situation as “humiliating and dehumanising,” with nurses forced to change in temporary offices while the trans-identifying colleague continued to use the female changing room.

The trial continues this week in Newcastle.

Earlier today I posted on Chinese pressure on Sheffield Hallam University, trying to stop a professor there from publishing her work on the ongoing repression of the Uighur in Xinjiang. Now, from Aaron Sarin at Quillette, we hear about Tibet, that other country so brutally absorbed into the absolutism of modern China. The article’s about Zhang Yadi, aka Tara Freesoul, a Chinese student who vanished into police custody over the summer, after visiting home just before starting a course here at SOAS. Her disillusion with China started when she began to uncover the lies she’d been told about Tibet. She’s now been charged with “inciting separatism”.

Contrary to the charge she now faces, Zhang did not advocate separatism (those who do will hardly risk returning to China). Rather, she appears to have advocated dialogue. “We are committed,” CYS4T proclaims on Substack, to “understand[ing] Tibetan culture, deconstructing Han nationalist ideology, resolving ethnic antagonism and hatred, and promoting the transformation of ethnic issues into justice and reconciliation.”

Beijing sees much to fear in these goals. For the CCP, Tibetan culture merits no deep understanding, but rather a gradual ingestion by its coloniser, leaving behind only a desiccated husk: the tourism industry. Already, millions of Chinese travel every year to the monasteries and nomad camps and costume shops of Lhasa and Shangri-La, where they photograph each other cosplaying as “authentic Tibetans,” living out a romanticised ideal.…

Greater public awareness would lead to the dawning realisation for many people that Tibet represents, by almost any metric, a separate civilisation. It is hardly just another Chinese province. The Communist Party would also prefer to keep a thick veil of darkness over its own seven-decade terror campaign against the Tibetan people. It would be safer for those crimes to remain obscured.…

Perhaps most significantly, Beijing will be alarmed at the prospect of ordinary people “resolving ethnic antagonism and hatred.” As we browse the work of Tara Freesoul, we find certain themes woven through the politics, revealing her personal philosophy. At one point she refers to a love that breaks through racial barriers; at another she appeals to the interconnectedness of all human beings and all nature. Hers is a world of greater communication and clarity, more light in the dark; a world in which the obstacles that restrict understanding are surmounted. And understanding one another also means understanding and preserving the distinctions that mark our human variety.

I’m reminded of an old remark by Polish dissident Leszek Kołakowski, when describing the situation in the Soviet Union: “Each citizen, in all his relations with the state, faced the omnipotent apparatus alone, an isolated and powerless individual.” The Chinese Communist Party was a Soviet project from the very beginning (formed in 1921 under the direct guidance of Comintern official Grigori Voitinsky), and while some things have changed over the past century, others have not. Like its Soviet master, the CCP would atomise society. It wants each citizen standing alone in the dark, with the Communist Party their only recourse—their saviour and tormentor. When Chinese and Tibetans begin talking deeply and frankly to one another without turning to the Party for guidance, then the Party risks the exposure of its lies, and that means the weakening of its psychic hold over the nation.

Which is also why they see religions – whether Christianity or Islam or Tibetan Buddhism or indeed Falun Gong – as enemies to be destroyed, offering as they do different loyalties, and a threat to the “omnipotent apparatus” of the Chinese state.

From the JC:

A concert hall in Amsterdam has called off its Chanukah show because the IDF’s chief cantor was due to perform.

Shai Abramson, who represents the IDF at official events, was set to sing at the Concertgebouw for the annual event organised by Chanukah Concert Foundation.

However, the decision was taken to cancel the production, with the hall’s director, Simon Reinink, saying that Abramson’s presence would be “opposed to our mission”.

“Making this decision was extremely difficult,” Reinink said. “Only in very exceptional circumstances do we make an exception to our important principle of artistic freedom. It is with great sadness that such an exception has now arisen.“

Because Israel. Because Jews are fine in their place, but when they assert themselves and fight back to preserve their homeland from annihilation – that’s where we draw the line.

And the venue went on to insist that Jewish performers more generally would be welcomed, saying: “In a time of rising antisemitism, we believe it is important to emphasise that the Concertgebouw will always remain a place where the Jewish community is welcome.”

Some other Jew, maybe. Just not that Jew. Remember, we make the rules round here.

However, the foundation told Dutch News: “The Concertgebouw is effectively asking us to replace our religious leader, which is not within its authority.

“[It is] an isolating and polarising step [for] the sense of isolation currently felt within the Jewish community.”

Three-quarters of Dutch Jews were murdered during the Second World War. In other Western European countries such as Belgium and France the numbers were far lower. So no, this is not a good look.

Some useful investigative reporting from the BBC for a change – China intimidated UK university to ditch human rights research, documents show:

China waged a campaign of harassment and intimidation directed at a UK university to get it to shut down sensitive research into alleged human rights abuses, documents seen by the BBC show.

Sheffield Hallam University staff in China were threatened by individuals described by them as being from China’s National Security Service who demanded the research being done in Sheffield be halted.

And access to the university’s websites from China was blocked, impeding its ability to recruit Chinese students, in a campaign of threats and intimidation lasting more than two years.

Why? Because Laura Murphy, professor of human rights and contemporary slavery at Sheffield Hallam, was investigating allegations that Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang were subject to forced labour and cultural (if not actual) genocide. Naturally the authorities at Hallam University caved in and told Murphy she couldn’t publish.

In late 2024, following pressure from the Chinese state and a separate defamation law suit against the university, Sheffield Hallam decided not to publish a final piece of research by Prof Murphy and her team into forced labour.

And in early 2025, university administrators told her that she could “not continue with her research into supply chains and forced labour in China”.

She initiated legal action against the university for failing in its duty to protect her academic freedom and she submitted a “subject access request” demanding Sheffield Hallam hand over any relevant internal documents.

The documents she obtained showed the university “had negotiated directly with a foreign intelligence service to trade my academic freedom for access to the Chinese student market,” she told the BBC.

She added: “I’d never seen anything quite so patently explicit about the extent to which a university would go to ensure that they have Chinese student income.”

With all the unwelcome publicity, the university has now changed tack and apologised to Murphy. She had to threaten legal action first, though.

More, in the Times, on the government’s procrastination over single-sex spaces:

Ministers have been accused of falling for lobbying by trans activists, including a former Stonewall boss, over concern among big business about new rules on single-sex spaces.

Women’s rights campaigners claimed the government had been “fooled” by a letter organised by the Trans+ Solidarity Alliance (TSA), where Nancy Kelley, the former chief executive of Stonewall, is among the directors.

The letter said 650 bosses had fears over new guidance for businesses which would exclude transgender people from single-sex spaces after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue. However, it was backed by only a handful of well-known names such as Lush and Ben and Jerry’s. The majority of signatories were Etsy stores, campaigners, unions and small retail websites.

The Times revealed last week that guidance setting out how organisations should provide single-sex spaces based on biology could be delayed for up to a year while the impact on businesses was assessed. It is understood that devolved administrations also have to be consulted, which government sources said was an important part of the process.

Any excuse will do. The government doesn’t want to upset its backbenchers and its trans support. If women have to pay the price, well…that’s how it goes.

Also, it’s the law. Does that not matter to Starmer, always the obsessive stickler for legality?

Maya Forstater, the chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, said: “No one should be fooled by this spurious claim that many businesses are concerned about complying with the Supreme Court’s judgment. This call has come from a fringe trans activist group with barely any business support.”She said of the TSA letter: “[It] is signed by a long list of ‘businesses’ no one has heard of. Many are tiny online traders or one-person bands. Very few employ people or maintain premises. The two big brands that have signed — Ben & Jerry’s and Lush — are known for their activism rather than providing services which include toilets, changing rooms or other places where single-sex rules apply.”

A comment:

Male and Female signs for toilet doors are available for 2.99 each on Amazon. The costs are non-existent

Where was the impact assessment to let men claiming to be women into spaces previously reserved for born-as females?

They call It Islamophobia we call it…👇
In Iran I was told if I don’t wear hijab, I get kicked out from school, I get jailed, lashes, beaten up & kicked out from my country. In the West I’m told, sharing these stories will cause Islamophobia.#LetUsTalk
pic.twitter.com/THLl3JnUt0

— Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) November 2, 2025

This, from Seth Mandel at Commentary (via), is very much worth a read – Closing the Book on ‘Genocide,’ ‘Deliberate Starvation’ and other Modern Libels.

A genocide didn’t happen—that we knew a long time ago. But it is now clear that there is no plausible case that Israel used excessive force against civilians or targeted noncombatants. The opposite is true: In pursuing Hamas, Israeli soldiers sacrificed their own lives to protect civilians. This is not an interpretation of some contextless video floating around social media; this is established fact.

The United Nations and other “humanitarian” and “human rights” groups needed this war to go on in perpetuity so they could forestall a public reckoning they richly deserve. Peace is bad for their business.

Finally, the “genocide” and “deliberate starvation” accusations can now take their place alongside history’s other assorted grotesque expressions of anti-Judaism. Just as Jews should feel no obligation to refute the accusation that they are “the sons of apes and pigs,” they should similarly avoid the debasement of being forced to answer for the fabricated claims of “genocide,” the intention of which is merely to incite violence against Jews and to diminish the crimes of the Holocaust.

Following the 1948 war, in which the Arabs failed to defeat Israel and drive the Jews into the sea (not to be confused with the 1967 war, in which the Arabs failed to defeat Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, or the 1973 war, in which the Arabs failed to defeat Israel and… pic.twitter.com/MNXrns9nmG

— Imtiaz Mahmood (@ImtiazMadmood) November 2, 2025

Full text:

Following the 1948 war, in which the Arabs failed to defeat Israel and drive the Jews into the sea (not to be confused with the 1967 war, in which the Arabs failed to defeat Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, or the 1973 war, in which the Arabs failed to defeat Israel and drive the Jews into the sea), almost a million Jews (many of whom had lived there for millennia) were expelled from Arab countries. They were harrassed, beaten up and had their possessions and homes stolen (for which they have never been compensated). Some were murdered.

Those fortunate enough to escape left with literally the clothes on their backs and nothing more. In response, Israel opened its doors and welcomed them with open arms.

This was the Jewish catastrophe, the one no-one talks about. In 1948 (prior to expulsion), there were well over 900,000 Jews living in Arab countries.

Today there are less than 3,500. In 1948, there were around 950,000 Arabs living in Israel. Today there are 1,720,000. This week, we commemorate the loss and suffering experienced by almost a million Jews, the Jewish ‘nakba’, the one nobody talks about.

Queen’s Wood and Highgate Wood this morning – autumn colour, and some gnarly hornbeam trunks:

Every time we think our expectations can’t get lower… pic.twitter.com/m85mw0ZO9Z

— Israel War Room (@IsraelWarRoom) November 1, 2025

Hirsch says:

There’s an outsize influence of the Holocaust that then obscures other histories and also obscures what is happening right now: the genocide in Gaza, which the exceptionalism of the Holocaust has fostered denial of other genocides. And I think that creates a real crisis if victims of genocide perpetrate genocide and one can deny that. I think we’re in a moment of real crisis.

We are in a moment of real crisis when a Columbia University professor can make such glib pronouncements. That Israel is in effect the new Nazi Germany – when “victims of genocide perpetrate genocide” – is by now an old trope, brought up with glee at the Free Palestine rallies. What’s particularly shocking here is that this should be dressed up in academic language, and printed in the NYT – and voiced by a professor who’s the daughter of Jews who fled the Nazis.

Elder of Zion:

Every few months, another academic or journalist decides that the best way to honor Holocaust memory is to accuse Israel of repeating it. The latest comes from The New York Times, where Professor Marianne Hirsch, interviewed by Masha Gessen, claims we need to “rethink how we think about the Holocaust.”

It’s a long conversation—ostensibly about pedagogy and post-memory—but it eventually lands in the same familiar place: Holocaust memory, they say, has been “misused” to justify Israeli actions in Gaza, while Israel itself now stands accused of committing “genocide.” Gaza, in their telling, is the new Warsaw Ghetto.

That’s not scholarship. That’s moral inversion with tenure.…

It isn’t Hamas who wants to wipe out a people like the Nazis – its the Jews, according to this scholar.

That Holocaust inversion is not just wrong; it’s obscene. It replaces ethical reasoning with aesthetic irony.

There’s a certain narrative seduction in imagining the victims becoming the villains. It feels poetic—almost redemptive. The oppressed become the oppressors; history closes its moral loop.

But this isn’t morality. It’s literature pretending to be ethics. It’s a way for comfortable liberal Western observers to purge inherited guilt: If Jews are now the Nazis, then we can be the righteous ones this time.

That’s why the Nazi analogy persists. It satisfies a psychological craving for symmetry, not a search for truth.

What makes Hirsch’s version especially dangerous is that it comes from within. She is Jewish, the daughter of survivors, and so the accusation carries an air of moral authenticity.…

Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany doesn’t deepen Holocaust understanding. It desecrates it.

More at the Jerusalem Post.