Lincoln's Choice GE2017: Why I Will Be Voting For Karen Lee And Labour On Thursday 8th June

Sometimes making a final decision can be surprisingly easy. I was in Lincoln's Primark last Friday shopping with my Mum (she'd not been into town for nearly 2 years and was dead excited to check out the latest styles) and we came across this amazing pair of denim hotpants, which had embroidered detail, paint and slogans all over it. For me, it was love at first sight- I grabbed the Size 20 faster than the Jamaican relay team grasp their batons in an Olympic Final. My Mum took much longer to convince-"oh the fit isn't right.....they're high waisted.....I'm 59 I can't carry off a punk look". 5 minutes later and me and Mum both had a pair in the basket and had moved on to look at a Sex Pistols tee. Although it took a while for my Mum to make her final decision, she made the right decision in the end. Politics wise, that's how I really am feeling at the moment. For weeks I hesitated, I read the manifestos, watched the debates wondering who'd make the best Prime Minister for the UK. There was no danger of me voting for the Tories.....hell no, not after the way they've conducted the Brexit process so far. Who wants to vote for someone whose primary response is to fear our European neighbours, throwing a wobbler over whether Spain will annexe Gibraltar (totally false by the way) and not stand up to the nincompoop President that is Donnie Drumpf when he slandered the Mayor of London by stating that "nobody should be alarmed" when in fact Mr Sadiq Khan was asking London residents to not be alarmed at the increased police presence on the streets and ridiculously pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, an agreement that even Russia remains signed up to. Yet after all the hesitation and analysis, I feel that I have reached the right decision to vote Labour and I'm going discuss why in this blogpost.

Nationally:

At a national level, the main choices for PM seems lacklustre for those amongst us who consider themselves centrists and moderates. Theresa May has got very few leadership qualities of note and her questionable record as Home Secretary is being exposed for all to see. Jeremy Corbyn has been portrayed by the mainstream media as a Marxist, "terrorist apologist" when he can only really be accused of possibly being too much of an ideological dreamer, choosing to pursue expansion of trade union powers and mass renationalisation in what still strikes some as a attempt to bring back 1970's style socialism. Now I certainly have not been a super Corbynista (I have more affinity with the Harriet Harman/ Jess Phillips/ Yvette Cooper side of the Labour party) but I've read the Labour manifesto (evidenced by the number of blogposts I've recently done on manifesto comparisons) and I'd say that the majority of it doesn't strike me as being particularly radical. I may not yet buy into the virtues of mass renationalisation yet (especially with regards to utilities) but even I agree that there is a need to review Sustainability and Transformation Plans and reduce the amount of privatisation in our NHS by repealing the Health and Social Care Act. The NHS was designed to ensure that every person in the UK could receive free treatment at the point of use. As investment hasn't kept up with an increase in population, this aim has been increasingly difficult to achieve. We need more funding, we need more staff and we need to ensure that the NHS is accessible to all and I believe Labour's plans, including pumping in an extra £30bn of investment, scrapping the public sector cap and reinstating the Nurses Training Bursary will help to address issues of under resourcing and help recruit more UK nurses.

Yet the Labour manifesto isn't just strong on the NHS. Some policies that never get any attention on the national news have convinced me to consider voting Labour beyond tactical reasons. For example, Labour have pledged to bring in a Commissioner to ensure that the police, local authorities and organisations adhere to at least a minimum standard to tackle domestic violence and sexual violence. Funding will be made available through central government to help stabilise the budgets of women's refuges and rape crisis centres. Although I'd have liked to have seen a general commitment to helping all survivors of domestic abuse, violence and coercive control, regardless of their gender it is a promising start. This policy has not been discussed in the Sun, The Daily Telegraph or the Daily Mail but it's one that makes me believe that a Labour government will truly work towards improving the lives of the majority of people in this country and not the few. Plus Corbyn has done extremely well with his campaign, making the effort to meet voters of all ages and talking about the need to foster creativity amongst young people. He has a message of hope that is resonating widely amongst the electorate and we still do not truly know what the effect on the vote will be on June 8th.

Locally:

At a local level, my choice has even more difficult but for positive reasons. We've been fortunate in Lincoln to have had two talented, amazing, progressive women running in this election both of which deserve recognition:

• Caroline Kenyon, a successful businesswoman (running a food photography business) and who worked as a journalist and magazine editor and PR guru who has worked with homeless charities and food organisations has truly inspired me to think about what more I can do to help fellow residents in my ward. She's organising a Food Summit that aims to look at sustainably providing food for Lincoln residents who find themselves in difficult circumstances that will take place regardless of whether she wins the election or not. Equally Caroline is working with the University of Lincoln to help establish a Primary Schools programme designed to help lift the aspirations of working class children in Lincoln. I know that it's incredibly important to have access to positive role models who can encourage children to think about their future in an age-appropriate way. I was fortunate to have teachers who saw through my Dyspraxia and encouraged me to read widely which fostered a love of books, especially History books that has never left me. Without that early intervention I would not be writing the blogposts like the one I am writing today. And I want other children, especially those with disabilities, to benefit from positive reinforcement technique and having access to role models they can identify with in the educational sector. 
• Karen Lee has been involved in Lincoln politics ever since 1994, when she became a Labour party member. She was elected as a City Councillor for Carholme Ward in 2004 and has successfully defended her seat at every local election since then. Karen served as Mayor of Lincoln in 2012-13, the 12th woman out of 13 in 811 years. Karen is a nurse and has worked diligently and passionately for Lincoln County Hospital for many years. Karen wants to increase the number of affordable homes in Lincoln by securing additional funding to expand the planned housing programme as well as fully supporting Labour's plans to bring in safe staffing levels in NHS wards and reintroduce Nurses Training Bursaries. Karen is described by the City Council's Labour Leader Ric Metcalfe as a "tireless and passionate local campaigner", which is true given as she was part of the successful campaign to save Lincoln South Fire Station from being downgraded.

Having read the key campaign leaflets (http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/parliamentary-party-candidate-leaflet.html) and 

 listened to both the Bishop Grosseteste Hustings (http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/thoughts-from-listening-to-bishop.html) and the joint Lincolnite and BBC Radio Lincolnshire Debate I feel that our city and surrounding villages of Skellingthorpe, Bracebridge Heath and Waddington East need a real progressive vision in place to improve the lives of all residents who live within the Lincoln Constituency boundary. What does a progressive vision involve I hear you cry? Well, it starts with an understanding that cross party collaboration is key to helping solve key social issues that affect our communities. It's clear to me that Caroline Kenyon's Food Summit project that she has outlined effectively during her campaign is one that the City of Lincoln Council, Lincolnshire County Council, the District of North Kesteven Council as well as the Lincolnshire Association of Parish Councils should get involved in and I have suggested Caroline gets in touch with my local City Councillor, Rosie Kirk because I believe that she'd be happy to participate. Lincoln's MP, regardless of who gets elected on June 9th should commit to working closely with Caroline and certainly attend the Food Summit when it is held. If they really care about reducing poverty levels in Lincoln and ensure that our foodbanks are stocked with healthy food to help disadvantaged families, signalling an intention to attend would not be a difficult act and I get the sense that Karen would be happier than Karl McCartney, our current MP to collaborate on the Food Summit project. Karen has also signalled a desire to work with the Green candidate, Dr Ben Loryman to scrutinise the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust's Sustainability and Transformation Plan (all STPs are to be halted and reviewed under a Labour manifesto commitment) and examine how best to recruit and retain high quality staff at Lincoln County Hospital. I'd also like to see close collaboration on animal welfare and LGBTQIA+ rights, two areas that have been rather noticeably neglected during Mr McCartney's tenure.

Another key aspect of a progressive vision is a firm commitment to stand up for all constituents, regardless of an MP's own personal views. Now I'm a Lutheran and I believe that my faith should never be used in a negative way to demean people who are members of other Christian denominations or followers of different faiths or who are atheists. Karen on the Lincoln Labour Party website (http://www.lincolnlabourparty.org.uk/karen-lee/) espouses a similar sort of approach to me which was pleasing to see: "I do hold my own views on religion, I was brought up a Catholic and feel that some spiritual belief is a priceless thing, but I think that it is essential to respect the right of individuals to practice their faith in their own way, whatever their religion might be." I get the sense that this means that Karen would be willing to solicit the opinion of Lincoln constituents before voting on an important moral or ethical issue, for example voluntary euthanasia. Unfortunately Mr McCartney used his personal Christian views to denigrate LGBTQIA+ people whilst acting in a professional capacity, stating in a letter to a constituent in 2012 that LGBT people "had exhausted the cause of equal rights" (http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/lincoln-mp-karl-mccartney-defiant-views-sex/story-15918962-detail/story.html) and he had the audacity to put same-sex marriage on the same level as "bigamy and child marriage". Even though same-sex marriage is now legal, there's no indication that Karl has changed his views towards LGBTQIA+ people. In fact, when asked questions on LGBTQIA+ rights during this 2017 Election cycle on Twitter, he has consistently ignored questioners which is extraordinary rude. LGBTQIA+ people in Lincoln are his constituents and most of them and their friends and family will have the ability to vote on Thursday; I have a sneaking suspicion that he won't garner many of them; serves him right! A progressive MP embraces change and accepts people's right to express themselves openly provided they adhere to the laws of the land. I'm all for "following the dictates of one's conscience" but when in public office, you have the thoughts and views of constituents to consider as well as your own and sometimes you have to put your personal views and opinions aside and vote in the best interests of your constituents. Karl just doesn't have a great record of doing that.

There's a number of policies in the Labour manifesto that could directly benefit Lincoln constituents in a progressive way. There's the obvious pledges of abolishing tuition fees and reintroducing the Educational Maintenance Allowance and university maintenance grants that will help students attending Lincoln College, my old sixth form at the Priory LSST Academy, the University of Lincoln and Bishop Grosseteste University but there are less well known policies too; the banning of unpaid internships that last more than a month, the protection of funding for libraries with money available to upgrade computer software that would benefit Lincoln Central Library and my local Birchwood Library amongst others. There's also a promise to look at accommodation standards for those in Armed Forces accommodation as well as extending the Forces Help-to-Buy scheme and insulating the homes of disabled veterans for free. Labour would ensure every school has access to a counselling service to help students deal with exam stress and anxiety and long term mental health conditions and that would help students who attend Lincoln schools.

Karen mentions specific Labour policies in her campaign poster leaflet, including:

• the proposed rise in Carer's Allowance that would directly  benefit 1,629 carers in Lincoln, giving them more than an extra £500 a year to spend on helping them and their dependent(s) with food, heating and clothing bills. 
• scrapping the bedroom tax which will help 749 people in Lincoln and insulating homes may help some of the 5,089 homes who are classed as being in fuel poverty. 
• protecting the Triple Lock because getting rid of it would affect 17,919 pensioners in Lincoln, one of which would probably be my Dad. 
• reversing cuts to Universal Credit and stopping other tax changes proposed by the Tories so that working families do not need to worry about losing £1,400 a year or have to prove that their third child was conceived as a result of rape through the despicable Child Benefit "rape clause". 

Strangely enough these issues are not mentioned in the Tory leaflet and they haven't been particularly addressed head-on by Karl. Instead, his leaflet focussed on transport infrastructure, apprenticeships and being a part of the "Keeping Sunday Special" campaign, which never really bothers my Mum, who's a care assistant working at least one weekend night a fortnight on her shift pattern and who has colleagues who are more worried about their residency status and wage growth under a future Conservative Government than about whether Sunday is kept special for managers and bankers. It's good that apprenticeships have increased by 6,960 since 2010 but how many of them have gone to those aged 25 and over? How many of them have been available in the creative industries? How many of those places have been filled by LGBTQIA+ Lincolnites? It seems to me that Karl is prepared to only talk about the successes and can't be bothered to put forward a truly coherent progressive plan for the future. What a shame.

An issue that I've heard discussed in the pub and around Lincoln generally is that of funding; funding schools, funding social care, funding recycling services, funding leisure centres and sports facilities, funding libraries and funding Lincoln County Hospital. What has been clear to me over the past few months is that Lincolnshire County Council needs more funding from local government. According to (shock horror) a UKIP leaflet that I received during the Lincs CC elections in May 2017, I found out that Lincs CC is the third lowest funded council in the country. £88 per head (the figure given in the UKIP leaflet is not enough to deliver the services we need as our population begins to age. Council Tax had to go up in Lincs (http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2017/01/council-tax-rise-proposed-as-lincolnshire-police-face-10m-funding-gap/) to help pay towards policing (1.97%) and the Police and Crime Commissioner's Office (we have a Conservative PCC here, Marc Jones) stated that we'd need to see an increase in funding from central government otherwise we'd have a gap in the budget of £10m between 2018 and 2020. This demonstrates to me that Labour are right to highlight that there is a need to increase policing budgets generally to help pay for equipment and the pledge to fund a police officer increase of 10,000 will probably mean that Lincs will see an increase in frontline staff which would be welcome! Yet another reason to consider voting Labour. The total Council Tax rise for those in Lincoln has also included a 1.91% rise in Council Tax precept for the City of Lincoln Council and 3.95% for the Lincs CC precept, estimated to be an extra £53 a year (http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2017/03/council-tax-rise-approved-for-lincoln-residents/). Let's hope the increase may go towards turning the streetlights back on our street or providing decent social care for disabled young adults (that's what a Labour controlled CC would have done).  In his time as Lincoln's MP, Karl has been very quick to ask for money to help complete transport infrastructure projects but has been unable to secure more funding for local government services such as for our police force. Instead Karl blames the lack of influence on being a backbencher and because we rejected a devolution deal Lincoln has harmed its chances of receiving more government investment. In his The Linc interview, Karl said:"it (the devolution deal) will not be quickly forgotten in Westminster and I think we'll be forced to the bottom of the pile for it in the future" (http://thelinc.co.uk/2017/06/the-lincoln-candidates-karl-mccartney/). Such a statement comes from a man who says in his leaflet that  Lincoln is "the most loved City and jewel in the crown of the East Midlands". Does Karl think I and other voters and constituents were born yesterday? How are we going to improve local services with an MP with such a defeatist attitude? I want to see an MP who will fight for us and not moan about being a backbencher.

Equally in The Linc interview I can still see that Karl remains as gender stereotypical as ever: "give a boy a solder and iron and he can do anything"...what about if that boy wants a thread and needle? Doesn't look like Karl believes that creative subjects are good enough for men does he? Epic facepalm moment once again for an MP who says that he cares about education but is far too quick to play into gender stereotypes and offers few concrete policies to help disadvantaged boys. I mean he talks about establishing a vocational scheme but would that be in addition to Conservative plans or a part of them? There are schemes out there which can help young boys foster a love of reading and writing; perhaps Karl if he's returned as our MP (somehow) could look into getting more Lincoln fathers to read to their sons like my Dad did with me and my brother. Has has he spoken to The Fatherhood Institute directly about their Fathers Reading Every Day Scheme? I'd like to see Karl promote awareness of it  (see more here: http://www.fatherhoodinstitute.org/training-and-consultancy/fathers-reading-day-training/). 

I also have something to say about the derogatory comment about parenting Karl has made in the interview because it's an important issue for me. As a dyspraxic person, it took me years to learn how to carry out daily tasks like tying a shoelace or holding a knife and fork. My parents certainly were not guilty of not teaching me how to do it. Sometimes it is the case that school students with learning disabilities need tailored support to help improve their hand-eye coordination skills to the point where they can use a knife and fork properly, hold a pen properly or even tie their shoelaces. I'd even go as far as to suggest that teaching nursery and reception pupils how to hold a knife and fork properly is an inclusive activity and helps students bond with one another. Dentists have also highlighted the fact that teaching pupils how to brush their teeth properly can help to reduce tooth loss and if less children face the prospect of having to wait till their adult teeth to come through to feel confident enough to smile because they've learned how to brush their teeth properly then I'm all for it. Those might seem like "parental issues" to Karl but teachers also care about the welfare of their pupils and they wouldn't have entered the profession if they didn't.  Karl's comments about free school meals in general indicate that he'd like to see them reduced to a bare minimum or even scrapped in the future because he asks the question:"is it the role of the state to feed young people?" Well I'd rather see primary school children have a guaranteed meal whilst at school rather than risk the chance of them not being fed at all whilst at school because their parents cannot afford to provide them with a meal (Karl may say that meals will be there for those that need it but he doesn't seem happy about it) and that's what Labour have pledged to do. Perhaps I'm more of a socialist than I thought and that might not be a bad thing! 

I mean Karl's voting record is embarrassing (voting for the bedroom tax and against same-sex marriage included) but I'd argue that his lack of policy proposals that specialise on helping Lincoln constituents is extremely disappointing and has to be pointed out. Karl's been in office since 2010 and yet he has had very little to say on the Environment, disability rights, renewable energy schemes, Sex and Relationships Education that is LGBTQIA+ inclusive or reducing instances of domestic violence, domestic abuse and coercive control in Lincoln. These are the issues that matter to me as a constituent and will get me to the polling station on Thursday. Yet Karl admits in his The Linc interview that the Conservative manifesto promises (which I've read) wouldn't appeal to a young voter because it's not their "core demographic". Well I'm 28 so I don't think I can be considered particularly young anymore but I believe that once a candidate admits that their manifesto cannot appeal to a particular demographic, they're asking voters in that demographic to vote en masse against them. What a shame that would be! ;) ;)

Whatever happens at a national level when the results are announced on the morning of Friday it is absolutely clear to me that Lincoln deserves a progressive, positive, polite and engaging MP in office; one that will stand up for all constituents regardless of their age, class, disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religious or political belief and one who isn't afraid to work cross-party on issues that matter to constituents. I'm putting my trust in a candidate who can do this and so much more who has a proven track record in campaigning and local politics and really cares about our city. I'm voting for someone who isn't afraid to defend Remain voters and understands the importance of preserving EU export jobs in Lincoln. I'm voting for someone who knows their manifesto inside out and will try and ensure Lincoln benefits from as many of manifesto policy pledges as possible. That person is Karen Lee and I will vote for her unashamedly on Thursday. 

Exploring the GE2017 Manifestos: LGBTQIA+ Rights

One of the key election areas that really matters to me is that of improving LGBTQIA+ rights in the UK. Too often, when we consider the positive or negative impact on policies on LGBT people, we forget that non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer, agender, intersex and asexual rights lag far behind those of LGBT people. I'm looking for a progressive, positive, inclusive approach from the mainstream parties towards improving rights across the board, and I feel that the manifesto pledges fall a bit short in achieving this. I guess this might be because I'm a massive fan of the Greens approach to LGBTQIA+ rights and their manifesto is truly radical and bold (you can view my analysis of the Green LGBTQIA+ manifesto here: http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/a-bold-wide-ranging-lgbtqia-manifesto.html).

Nonetheless, there are policies and pledges that are worth exploring and analysing:

Labour:

• Teachers would be given specific training on how to deal with homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools.
• New Sex and Relationships Education guidance would be issued that would be LGBT inclusive (but no mention of queer,intersex and asexual lesson plan guidance).
• Labour would make LGBT hate crime an "aggravated offence".
• Labour would ensure that mental health service cuts would be reversed to help LGBT service users (no idea how they'd improve accessibility to those services).
• Labour pledges to ensure that frontline healthcare professionals receive ongoing training so that they can better understand and meet the needs of LGBT service users (what about intersex service users?). 
• Labour will allow the PrEP trial to be concluded in England (and ensure it is concluded ASAP) and then roll out the treatment to all high-risk groups in the hope that it reduces HIV infection rates.
• Labour would amend the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 and the Equality Act (EA) 2010 by changing the protected characteristic from "Gender Reassignment Surgery" to "Gender Identity" and remove outdated terminology such as "transsexual" (some trans people refer to themselves as transsexual to separate themselves from the transgender label because they want to be recognised differently because they specifically choose to medically transition).
• Labour would appoint "dedicated global ambassadors" for LGBT rights.

Lib Dems:

• The Lib Dems would review SRE in schools, with lessons on consent and LGBT+ relationships (no idea yet as to whether intersex and asexual issues would be discussed in SRE lessons).
• Companies with 250+ employees would be mandated to publish data on LGBT+ employees.
• There would be a push to extend the use of name-blind recruitment processes in the public sector and try and get private sector businesses to adopt the practice.
• The Lib Dems would ask the Advisory Committee on Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs to review the Blood Donation rules for men who have sex with men.
• The Lib Dems would introduce an "X option on passports, identity documents and official forms" for non-binary, gender-fluid and agender people and campaign to extend the X option across the board, including private sector documents (e.g. utility bills).
• The EA protected characteristic would change (like Labour) and the GA would be "streamlined", so that people can change their legal gender without "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles".
• The Lib Dems specifically vow to remove the spousal veto from the GA "and abolish any remaining marriage inequalities in areas such as pensions, hospital visitation rights (e.g. whether a trans person would be treated in a ward which corresponds to their acquired gender) and custody of children in the event of bereavement". 
• The Lib Dems will oppose any attempt to "water down" the Human Rights Act 1998 or remove us from the European Convention on Human Rights. 
• The Lib Dems would ensure that trans prisoners are put in prisons that reflect their acquired gender identity. 
• The Lib Dems would offer asylum to LGBT+ people fleeing persecution, possible imprisonment, torture or execution on the basis of their gender identification or sexuality and stop them from being deported back to those countries in the future. Detention limits would be put at 28 days and processing times for asylum applications would be speeded up. 
• LGBT+ mental health services would receive guaranteed funding under a Lib Dem government.
• PrEP would be made available on the NHS in England as it is already available in Scotland.
• The Lib Dems want to introduce all-LGBT+ parliamentary shortlists in the future.
• The Lib Dems commit to increase efforts to try and "decriminalise homosexuality around the world and advance the cause of LGBT+ rights".

Conservatives:

• The Conservatives have pledged to tackling hate crime that is committed on the basis of "transgender identity" (I'd have written gender identity and expression).
• The Conservatives would not remove the UK from the ECHR for the duration of the next Parliament and would not make any legislative changes to the HRA (which enshrined the ECHR into UK Law) until the Brexit process has been concluded.

Thoughts: 

At first glance, it's abundantly clear that Labour and the Lib Dems believe that LGBT+ rights do need to be improved in the UK and they are not ashamed to discuss policies to achieve this directly in their manifestos. I have tweeted and chatted to LGBT people who identify as right-wing though who argue that LGBT+ rights have already improved in the UK and that it's better to focus on policies to improve rights more generally. That being said, most I have tweeted are more concerned about getting the Brexit deal concluded than improving the rights of people in the LGBT+ community who may face barriers different from themselves (e.g. if a trans domestic violence survivor is finding it difficult to access domestic violence and abuse services because there are no LGBT+ services in their local area). What is in the Conservative manifesto is very basic; as a minimum I'd expect a commitment to tackling trans hate crime and not destroying the HRA. What many on the Brexit loving right do not always understand is that being a signatory of the ECHR and being able to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights allowed LGBT+ rights to develop across the UK, including allowing openly gay people to service with pride in our wonderful Armed Forces and legalising homosexuality in Northern Ireland (shame same-sex marriage isn't legal yet!)

The manifesto pledges by Labour and the Lib Dems do seem similar, especially in relation to providing SRE guidance for schools, ensuring that LGBT+ mental services are fully funded and providing PrEP on the NHS in England ASAP. The Conservatives have made a commitment to increase mental health funding, with an extra £1bn pledged by 2020/21 and they did mention the need to have mental health first aid training in schools that could help LGBT+ students directly (the Lib Dems and Labour both agree with this policy and mention it directly in their own manifestos). There's also a pledge from both Labour and the Lib Dems to tackle LGBT homelessness. The Albert Kennedy Trust carried out a study  that up to a 1/4 of LGBT young people are homeless in the UK (http://www.akt.org.uk/webtop/modules/_repository/documents/AlbertKennedy_researchreport_FINALinteractive.pdf) and removing the Housing Benefit for 18-21 year olds is going to have a negative impact on them if local councils try to deny access to the benefit to them (although the Conservatives have promised that Housing Benefit would remain available to those who "desperately need" it).  

I'm pleased to see Labour specifically commit to provide funding for training for teachers on how to deal with homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying. It's alright to allow equality organisations such as Stonewall to bring in diversity champions to talk about HBT bullying to students but teachers need to be able to have strategies in place to confront and challenge the bullies and hopefully change their mind towards acceptance and that takes more than a day visit to achieve. The information that needs to be disseminated to teachers is more technical and complex than the information relayed to secondary school students.

An amazing commitment made by the Lib Dems is to specifically help LGBT+ asylum seekers by offering them a guaranteed place of safety in the UK. If a person is fleeing for their life because they fear they could be murdered because they are openly trans, then I believe we as an open and tolerant country should allow them to come here and be able to live a life that's more secure. We should never deport a trans person who would still be at risk of persecution and we should do everything we can to help them adjust to life in the UK. For the Lib Dems, this means allowing "working age" asylum seekers to look for work if they've waited for more than 6 months for their application to be processed, rather than expecting them to have to subsist on benefits. Giving asylum seekers a chance to gain employment to support themselves in the UK is a positive step forward. 

There is of course the issue of closing LGBT+ venues across the UK that some feel needs to be addressed. According to The Gay UK, 100 gay bars alone have closed in London alone since 2000. Now, I'm not sure whether incentives can be put in place to increase the number of gay bars in the UK so that LGBT people have more safe places to go, but Labour have pledged to "set up a national review of local pubs" that's to get to the bottom of why so many have closed and create a taskforce to look into proposing sustainability measures to stop the declining trend. Of course, it may just be the case that because LGBT people are becoming more accepted by mainstream society, they can go into pubs and bars that aren't LGBT focussed without fear of harassment, bullying or being violently attacked. As activists have pointed out, there is still a long way to go to make the UK streets truly safe for LGBT people and also the fact that LGBT venues allow people to meet and discuss and date. 

Whilst the Conservatives mentioned LGBT rights 0 times in the manifesto (let alone queer, intersex and asexual rights) PM May did take part in a Q&A with PinkNews to answer questions put to her by LGBT readers (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/18/qa-prime-minister-theresa-may-answers-all-your-lgbt-questions-ahead-of-the-general-election/) and in the interests of fairness it's important to highlight the pledges PM May herself made during the interview, including:

• Providing LGBT+ guidance to make SRE lessons inclusive (despite the fact that the Tories voted down an amendment to legislation that would have made LGBT+ inclusive SRE mandatory in all schools and I believe it should be)
• Not forcing Northern Ireland to make same-sex marriage legal (because she says it is a devolved issue yet she know full well the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) oppose same-sex marriage and vetoed it whilst in government)
• Raising the issue of LGBT+ rights with the Russian government (I've not heard the Tories being vocal on this) and supporting calls for a "thorough and independent investigation to take place" examining human rights abuses against LGBT+ people in Chechnya
• Reviewing the GRA, including moving the system away from "medical checks"
• Signing up the European Convention on Human Rights for another 5 years (which was in the manifesto) and promising the "commitment to equality for LGBT people is unequivocal and will not change" as the UK exits the EU
• Carrying on with the large-scale PrEP trial in England with £10m allocated over the next 3 years for it (but Labour wants to see the PrEP trial conclude ASAP)
• Make possible changes to passports and legal gender identity but only after conducting a review of gender requirements on government forms and passports (which is part of the Transgender Action Plan)
• Maintain the memorandum of understanding between therapists and NHS England to condemn gay cure therapy (but not commit to making it illegal)
• Encourage local authorities to work with the Albert Kennedy Trust to reduce LGBT homelessness
• Continue "hosting representatives of LGBT groups and Pride organisers from around the UK at Downing Street".

The question I have for the Conservatives is: why didn't they feel confident enough to mention the review of the GRA in their manifesto? Were they afraid of upsetting potential older Tory voters who may be transphobic or could they not be bothered to mention it? It sends out a very negative message to floating voters who may be active in the fight for LGBT+ rights. Equally, there was no commitment made by PM May to implement the Trans Inquiry Recommendations in full which is disappointing considering Nicky Morgan and the Women and Equalities Committee Chair Maria Miller, both Conservatives, made those recommendations to David Cameron in 2016. 

Another issue that will need to be addressed in time for the next General Election is access of trans people to the voting process. Currently there are a number of trans people who have reported that they were unable to register to vote because their National Insurance number hasn't been updated to reflect their change in gender identity; apparently you need to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to prove legally you have changed gender before your NI number can be used. However, no guidance can be offered to local authorities on this by the Electoral Commission, meaning that socially transitioned voters feel locked out of the system: (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/21/trans-voters-are-being-blocked-from-registering-in-the-uk/). Perhaps a change in the GRA will allow for these discrepancies to be ironed out and allow for easier GRC obtention. 

"Pride, Not Prejudice": A Trans and Non-Binary Anthology For Our Time

Trans and non-binary people in the UK have become more visible over the past few years. Whilst we've always existed (look at the example of eunuchs as gender non-conformists), there's been an attempt to erase our identities out of history, mainly because we dare to challenge the traditional social norms governing gender identity. Most historians have been adherents to a rock solid socialised belief that "God made man and woman only" even though the actual Genesis 1:27 quote is that "God created mankind in his own Image, in the Image of God he created them; male and female he created them"...he never went on to define what masculinity or femininity entailed in the Garden of Eden because acts such as childbirth didn't happen until after the "Fall of Man" incident.....you know the one where Eve got blamed for wanting to find out more about the world from a seductive snake....still have no idea how that story can be proved! For the past thousand years or so most Christian (Catholic and Protestant) denominational interpretations of gender which see gender wedded indiscriminately to biological sex characteristics alone has dominated the socio-historical narrative. It's been preached in every pulpit across the country, along with the idea that adultery was a sin and love of money was "the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10) and yet wealthy male parishioners got away with indulging in adulterous affairs and became incredibly materialistic. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there were parishioners who innately felt they were a man rather than a woman or didn't believe they belonged to one gender or the other. Working class parishioners especially would have faced many barriers towards openly expressing their beliefs and because most weren't given the tools to write "in an academic manner" (because they didn't get access to the grammar school/public school education they needed to be able to attend university), their stories were very rarely recorded.

In fact, there are few biographies of historical gender non-conformists around. One of the most interesting historical figures that received contemporary attention was the enigmatic Chevalier D' Eon, a solider who fought in the Seven Years War and who spent time working as a spy for the French court, having successfully infiltrated the court of Empress Elizabeth of Russia dressed and presenting as a maid of honour. The Chevalier spent the last 33 years of their life presenting and identifying solely as a woman. D'Eon actually insisted at the time they were assigned female at birth, and were forced to dress as a man in order for their father to inherit money from their relations. King Louis XVI granted D'Eon their request to be recognised as a woman, on the condition that they wear women's clothing for the rest of their lives. There was no real fairytale ending for the Chevalier; they ended up impoverished and living in London following the French Revolution.

Very few students in state schools in the UK, let alone trans and non-binary ones know of D'Eon's fascinating story. I've always felt that the lack of trans and non-binary role models being taught about as part of the National Curriculum has meant that it's been difficult to encourage acceptance and empathy for gender non-conforming identities which would help to tackle instances of street harassment and transphobic hate crime. LGBTQIA+ inclusive Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) will help to introduce Key Stage 3 and 4 students to the basics of trans and non-binary identities (i.e. definitions), but exploring biographies and ideas that have originated from trans and non-binary people would help challenge the narrative that trans people are "a trend" or that non-binary people didn't exist until Judith Butler's Queer Theory came along. Judith Butler may have challenged traditional gender stereotyping head-on academically but the view that gender identity is something that can be changed or is fluid has existed far longer than Queer Theory has been taught in A-Level English Literature.

Here are a few examples of historical trans and non-binary people who could be discussed in schools:

• Elagabalus, a Roman Emperor who was known to be outrageously bohemian, having been married 5 times to both men and women. Elagabalus does seem to have been gender-fluid, as it was documented by contemporary historians that they wore women's cosmetics and dressed in the latest female fashions of the era. It's also recorded that Elagabalus offered a huge reward for any doctor who could give them female genitalia
• Albert Cashier, a trans man who served in the Union army during the American Civil War and took part in 40 battles; he was so dedicated to the Unionist cause that he overpowered a prison guard so he could return to his regiment
• Laurence Michael Dillon was the first trans man to undergo a phalloplasty and wrote the first book about transitioning and trans identity: "Self: A Study in Endocrinology and Ethics"in 1946. Dillon believed gender identity was innate and unaffected by conversion therapies or psychotherapy and concluded that hormone therapy and surgery was the best way to help trans people. Dillon took part in the first gender reassignment surgery (GRS) in the UK, an orchidectomy (removal of the testes) operating on Roberta Cowell, a trans woman.
• Roberta was a British fighter pilot during WWII who was taken prisoner by the Germans after crash landing in Bochtolt, Germany. She was kept in solitary confinement for weeks at an interrogation centre before being imprisoned at Stalag Luft I. She had a vaginaplasty on the 15th May 1951, after presenting as intersex to a private gynecologist following her secret orchidectomy. Her story was published in Picture Post and her biography was published soon afterwards, which brought her attention from international media, especially in the US. Cowell did continue stating she was intersex for the rest of her life and unfortunately spoke out derogatorily against trans people who had XY chromosomes in a 1972 interview with Michael Bateman of The Sunday Times, calling them "freaks".
• Alan L. Hart was one of the first Americans to undergo a hysterectomy in order to have GRS. Hart was an X-ray technology pioneer, having developed techniques for tuberculosis screening and his research helped to save thousands of lives.

It's important that trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer people know that there were people before them who dared to challenge the dual gender binary norms. That's why an Unbound anthology "Trans: A British History", was crowdfunded. Unbound, are an innovative publishing team that allows books of all types to be published with the help of Crowdfunding campaigns.  Over 113,658 people have supported an Unbound project and the company has published 218 books to date (https://unbound.com/about) including the groundbreaking and timely anthology of 21st century authentic voices from the British BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) community, edited by Nikesh Shukla, author of the 2010 Costa First Novel Award shortlisted "Coconut Unlimited". "Trans: A British History is being edited by  Christine Burns MBE who helped to build up the trans activist organisation "Press For Change" and took part in the process to create the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will be important to read. I actually suggested Philip Davies and Richard Littlejohn go and get themselves a copy of the anthology to help inform their understanding of the history of trans activism in the UK and read the words of trans activists who have fought hard to allow people like me to be protected from discrimination in the workplace (protected characteristic in the Equality Act).

However, it's imperative that we challenge the assumption made by those on the right who adhere to conservative doctrines on gender identity that trans and non-binary people think, believe or act in the same way. Trans people do not all believe that SRE should be LGBTQIA+ inclusive (unfortunately) and there are activists who believe that trans people are judged too much on how "alike" they look to "normal" cis men and women and are accepted the more "aesthetically pleasing" they appear. Representation in the mainstream media has been rather tokenistic, with trans people being required to offer their view "as a trans person" on controversial topics in a debate structure that's designed to look for stark differences in opinion than focusing on similarities. Destructive rather than constructive. Trans and non-binary people aren't always prepared to just sit there and wait to be cordially invited onto another diversity panel where they can give their opinion to those who may already be allies. Wouldn't it be nice for a trans person to present a BBC politics or debate programme or a non-binary person to win a prize for their photography or painting or play based on the merit of their work, not just because they'd be the "first" to do it? Wouldn't it be nice for a trans non-binary person to be to contribute their view on any topic, regardless of their own gender identity?

You might think therefore that it would be counterproductive to be excited at being asked to contribute an essay to a new Unbound anthology project that features trans and non-binary voices. However the anthology is extremely ambitious and aims to explore the intersectional issues that affect trans and non-binary and cis peoples' lives in the UK. The anthology will contain essays covering a wide range of issues that affect trans and non-binary people, from the nature of passing (and the unnecessary amount of gatekeeping that takes place based on superficial aesthetic definitions), trans feminism and feminism within the trans community (whether trans people can really take their place advocating for gender equality within an inclusive, intersectional feminist movement and why it's important to allow non-binary people their space to advocate freely too) and the relationship between gender identity and religious faith (the challenge of being a believer and defying denominational interpretations of gender and why religious texts help in this respect). The essays will also touch on issues that are debated by the population at large from a trans and non-binary standpoint, including mental health, education, disability, socialisation/class and representation in the mainstream media. Because you know trans and non-binary people like me talk about a lot more in their daily lives than just their gender identity or sexuality. We have multiple interests and multiple types and levels of expertise which should hopefully be laid bare in this comprehensive, challenging set of essays. Plus, there's also going to be an essay which shall be exploring the "origin of trans identities in Victorian London" which I must personally say I'm looking forward to reading. So yes, you can probably tell that I am excited as trans non-binary satirist to be contributing to the anthology!

"Pride, Not Prejudice" will be edited by Helen Belcher, current Lib Dem Parliamentary Party Candidate for Chippenham, businesswoman and author who has been "recognised by the Independent on Sunday as one of the most influential British LGBT people three years in a row"(.https://unbound.com/books/pride-not-prejudice).  Helen is also co-founder and co-director of Trans Media Watch, which campaigns for a change in mainstream press attitudes towards trans, non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer people. 

"Pride, Not Prejudice", will contain essays from 21 trans and non-binary people from across the UK who come from all walks of life. Some contributors you'll have heard of before whilst others are writing professionally and/or being published for the very first time.
Contributors include:

• awesome Maria Munir who has the envious brag that they came out first to President Barack O B A M A who has written for the Huffington Post (equally enviable)
• superb writer, (I adored the 2015 "Tiny Pieces of Skull") writer, critic and founding member of Feminists Against Censorship, Roz Kaveney who appeared in a 1988 After Dark episode featuring radical feminist Andrea Dworkin
• talented photographer J Jackson (see their non-binary photo project on Instagram here: https://www.instagram.com/nonbinaryportraits/) 
• author of the powerful and incredible moving "Trans: A Memoir", Juliet Jacques who began chronicling her transition on her blog in 2010
• roving reporter and all round funkster Sarah O'Connell, who has produced a YouTube show introducing novices to trans issues: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHjm1cByr7oYs15Z9dOzWcA
• passionate writer, founder of https://aetherandichor.wordpress.com/ a publisher of short fantasy stories and future critic to watch out for Eris Young (you can access Eris's blog here: https://apiomancy.wordpress.com/)
• the phenomenal Surat-Shaan Knan who founded and manages Rainbow Jews, Twilight People (a project exploring faith and gender beyond the dual binary distinction) and Rainbow Pilgrims (a project that aims to uncover the "hidden history" of LGBTI migrants of faith who settled in the UK, from the Jewish Kindergarten Transport (1938-1940) to the present Syrian refugee crisis)
• trans role model and IT engineer Justine Smithies who attended Jeremy Corbyn's (and one of my fav MPs, Shadow Secretary for Equalities Sarah Champion's) LGBT History Month reception: http://justine.smithies.me.uk/
• diversity guru for Sainsbury's and fellow dyslexic Leng Montgomery 
• amazing musician and campaigner Kate Hutchinson, currently director of Wipe Out Transphobia, co-founder of TELI and working with Pathways Training  (you can access her insightful blog here: http://katiekhaos.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1) 
• then of course there's someone like me....a working class, dyspraxic, non-denominational blogger just grateful to be in such esteemed company!

The trans and non-binary voices you'll be reading will be authentic and from the heart. They will be explaining how they see 21st century British society and how 21st century British society perceives and evaluates them as individuals and as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. The words that you'll read may make you uncomfortable at times but only because those words may be exposing examples of blatant hypocrisy that exists at every level of British society when it comes to discussing gender, especially the eagerness of some who claim to be critical of gender stereotyping to resort to trans-misogyny and cissexism to justify their separation arguments. There's no doubt there will be essays critiquing viewpoints such as "trans people are seeking to erase homosexuality" or "trans women are wanting to invade the ladies loos" or "non-binary people are a threat to the traditional family unit" or as the current supposedly "diversity friendly" Catholic Pope Francis puts it, trans and non-binary people like me are declaring "global war on marriage". These viewpoints do need to be questioned and stereotypes need to be broken down, not reinforced.

At the same time, I hope the essays will explore the similarities in views between those critical of gender (not just radical feminists) and trans and non-binary people who want to be seen authentically as themselves and be valued for who they are. Challenging outdated gender stereotypes and roles should be a common goal. Do gender critical radical feminists like Germaine Greer really think trans people transition so they adopt the role of homemaker or want to be subservient as part of some weird "fetish" that some far-right Conservative men would love to see come back into the mainstream? Because that's something I've never heard uttered by trans friends! Why do we want to live in a world where we're all het up about insisting on men wearing suits to work and women having to wear high heeled shoes to stand at reception just to "make a good impression to clients?" Surely it's better to question those gender norm policies and change mindsets, so we get to the point where we don't batter an eyelid when even a cisgender  guy comes into work wearing a dress!!

When I engage with people I don't particularly care what make-up they are wearing or what shoes they have on their feet. I care about their ideas, their opinions and views and also about empowering people whose voices are rarely heard to share them with the world. I want to hear their views on how to make HR policies fairer to trans and non-binary employees or to help disabled people who are losing access to benefits that they need to maintain a dignified and healthy life. I care about listening to people who have ideas about how to engage our young people in the political system or folks who just want to extend the hand of compassion to Syrian refugees fleeing the horrendous conflict between dictator President Assad, rebel forces and ISIS. Trans and non-binary people across the UK have such ideas yet they hardly get the chance to discuss them. Instead, the mainstream media outlets want to rehash discussions that stagnate, salivating over which trans women will deny they are real women and which non-binary people will be shouted at by those who engage in hate discourse rather than offering constructive criticism. I can't believe we're still at the stage where we are debating the very existence of trans and non-binary identities. Could you imagine constant mainstream debating of homosexual identity on a weekly basis in 2017 in the UK? It's bad enough watching the disturbing events unfolding in Chechyna, where a radical Muslim authoritarian President has publicly declared he's going to massacre innocent people before Ramadan on the basis of their sexuality.

Trans and non-binary activists, politicians, journalists, painters, architects, musicians, lawyers, healthcare professionals, aid workers, teachers and yes, even satirists are using their platforms to debate, discuss and critique issues that affect all of us in 21st century UK albeit with their unique perspective gained through individual life experiences . The "Pride, Not Prejudice" anthology will offer a valuable, vital window into such debate, discussion and critique. For that reason alone I believe that it deserves to be published. So if you want to help get it printed, published, promoted and disseminated and if you want your own copy, you can pledge your donation on the Unbound website here:
https://unbound.com/books/pride-not-prejudice. Every pledge counts and will be appreciated!

(Thanks to Eris for designing this!!!) 

Why #ImWithHer (Hillary Clinton) Part 2: Hillary Has Decent Policies (But Some Require A Little Tweaking)

I've already dealt with my feelings regarding Donald Trump in my previous blogpost which was important to do for my sanity and to show my readers just how much I detest Trump's deliberate attempt to re-embed misogyny into the moral fabric of American (and international society). If you haven't seen that blogpost, you can view it here: http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/why-imwithher-hillary-clinton-part-1-im.html

However I believe that Hillary supporters often spend YUGE amounts of time picking out Don the Con's faults without selling why we back Hillary so emphatically and without much regret. I'm a fan of Hillary's policies ideas so wanted to share and comment on some of the best here. Some critics might think that these policy areas "don't matter", that a presidential candidate can't focus on trying to help HIV/AIDS patients by implementing a National Strategy whilst at the same time defending the US from ISIS attacks or you can't help tackle LGBTQIA bullying in the education system by creating a $500 million plan whilst addressing economic inequalities in coal mining communities in Michigan or Ohio by encouraging retraining of the workforce and modernisation of the mines themselves. You don't have to choose between the two if you have a solid plan to tackle both issues unless you believe that you don't have the intellectual stamina or grit determination to address both of them simultaneously.

Here I outline a few of Hillary's policies to show you just how in-depth, progressive and thoughtful they really are (despite the fact they seem to receive little attention from the mainstream media (MSM) outlets these days). These are the policies that I would care about if I was able to vote in Colorado; yes they are mainly social in nature but I tend to vote for a party based on their social positions. Many Millennials on the left are more likely to vote based on preserving progressive values rather than vote based on fear of the "Other".

Hillary's LGBTQIA Policies:

1. Establish the Equality Act by amending the Civil Rights Act (1964) adding gender identity and sexual orientation as protected characteristics to ensure LGBTQIA people have explicit protection from discrimination "in all facets of American life", including housing, education and jury service.
2. Hillary will honour all of President Obama's LGBTQIA Executive Actions, including nondiscrimination protections for federal employees and regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in federal housing programmes.
3. Support efforts in Congress and in the states to end "conversion therapy" for LGBTQIA children.
4. Pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act to specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexuality.
5. Pass the Student Non-Discrimination Act to prevent public schools from discriminating against LGBTQIA pupils. This includes the Better Than Bullying Plan announced by Hillary on the 4th November 2016 which promises to provide $500 million to tackle bullying against children based on "labelling" and will ensure all states abide by their anti-bullying laws.  
6. Provide adequate funding for shelters that help LGBTQIA homeless youth. When 45% of the youth homeless population identifies as LGBT, they need and deserve help and support to turn their lives around.
7. End discriminatory treatment against LGBTQIA couples wanting to adopt by passing the Every Child Deserves A Family Act which will prevent child welfare organisations from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or sexuality.
8. Allow transgender military personnel to continue serving openly and treated with dignity and respect (there are 15,500 actively serving trans people in the military making the Dept. for Defence the biggest employer of trans people in the US).
9. Amend records of LGBTQIA vets dismissed due to their sexual orientation or gender.
10. Invest in police training to ensure transgender people are treated with respect in a fair and impartial manner.
11. Make it easier to change gender markers on official documentation.
12. Promote LGBTQIA rights around the world and increase support for the Global Equality Fund, that Hillary launched in 2011 by increasing funding by $50 million.
13. Create a National HIV/AIDS Strategy- see below:

Hillary's National HIV/AIDS Strategy:
There are currently 1.2 million people living with HIV in the US and 50,000 people get diagnosed with HIV annually. Hillary understands that HIV is not only contracted by gay men or people of colour but by women and children too. Hillary wants to work towards creating an AIDS-free generation and has created a Strategy in order to make this happen. Trump has not announced such a comprehensive strategy nor has he shown any particular concern for HIV/AIDS patients during his Presidential campaign. Here's what Hillary wants to do in a nutshell:

• Invest in research conducted by organisations such as the NIH (National Institute for Health) to enable them to carry on trying to find a cure for HIV without worrying about funding shortfalls.
• Cap monthly and annual out-of-pocket expenses for HIV/AIDS patients to $250 and ensure Medicare is empowered to bargain for lower drug prices from pharmaceutical companies. Hillary will also end drug subsidies that pharmaceuticals get for direct-to-consumer advertising and use the subsidies to invest in research instead.
• Raise knowledge about PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) medication to increase uptake especially amongst those populations at greatest risk of infection - transgender people and black men who have sex with men. Hillary will ensure that everyone who needs HIV medication will have access to it.
• Extend Medicaid coverage- 70,000 people with HIV were uninsured before the Affordable Care Act but now 47,000 should be eligible to receive new Medicaid. Hillary wants to make sure every state expands Medicaid and she'll fight tooth and nail to make this happen.
• Reform HIV Criminalisation Laws (attempting to repeal/abolish if possible) by working with advocates, HIV and AIDS organisations, Congress and the Senate.
• Hillary will enforce the Disability Act to fight discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS.
• Increase global funding for HIV and AIDS treatment and prevention (showing how compassionate a President Hillary would really be!)

Hillary's Autism Strategy:
Hillary is currently the only candidate to offer a comprehensive strategy to help improve the lives of autistic children and adults in the US, who have often felt undervalued and ignored in government decision making in the past. More than 3.5 million people in the US are believed to have autism and improving support will help to transform their lives. Hillary wants to extend the Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act that she introduced when a New York Senator and which gained bipartisan support, demonstrating that she can inspire her political opponents to believe in improving equal rights for those living with autism and other disabilities, something Trump has failed to prove during his Presidential campaign.

1. Expand insurance cover for autism services so autistic people don't have to worry about being able to access services - whether through private insurance or government healthcare plans.
2. Work with the Department for Defence to ensure military families have full access to autism services through the TRICARE system.
3. Conduct an early national screening outreach campaign so autistic children can receive the help they need education and social wise to improve work and life chances.
4. Invest in autism research and conduct the first-ever nationwide survey of autistic adults (long overdue!)
5. Launch a new Autism Works Initiative which will guarantee a post-graduate transition plan for every student with autism.
6. Enact the Keeping All Students Safe Act banning all physical and chemical restraints that could endanger a pupil's life and restrict physical restraint to protecting the student from endangering other students with schools required to write to parents to explain why they used the restraint.

Hillary's Environmental Policies:

1. Remain fully committed to honouring the Paris Climate Change Agreement (that's gone into effect on 4th November 2016) by reducing green house gas emissions by up to 30% and put the US on track to cut emissions by 80% by 2050.
2. Install half a billion solar panels in US homes by the end of Hillary's first term (with a desire to allow every home in the US to become Clean-Energy powered).
3. Reduce oil consumption by 1/3.
4. Ban oil drilling in the Arctic.
5. Launch the $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge - partnering with states, cities and rural communities to cut carbon pollution for all, including low-income families to ensure nobody is left behind by the energy revolution.
6. Eliminate lead poisoning within 5 years and clean up more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites.
7. Create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force thereby fostering a sense of "collaborative stewardship" and an emphasis on our "collective responsibility" to help combat Climate Change and protect the Environment.
8. Create an Energy Plan that would pay $9 billion annually to help fund pensions and health of coal workers and cut carbon emissions.
9. Block attempts to resurrect construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (unlike Trump who wants to finish it).

Note on Hillary's Environment Policies:
Green supporters have criticised Hillary for not speaking out against the proposed North Dakota Access Pipeline which will cross Native American (Sioux) lands at Standing Rock after the pipeline plans were redirected from Bismarck (which happens to have a population that is 90% White). Native American protestors see the pipeline as encroaching on their land, making them feel inferior to other Americans. For them it is more than a protest about water or generic "climate change" conversations. It is important to note that the pipeline would cost $3.7 billion if completed and cover 1,170 miles of land (according to American Friends Service Committee: https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/what-we%E2%80%99re-reading-nodapl-occupation-standing-rock).  I can see from other policies from Hillary that she would be sympathetic to blocking construction of the pipeline and President Obama has responded to requests from Senator Bernie Sanders to ask the construction companies to reconsider their plans to take into account environmental impact, but the lack of vocally speaking out in favour of the #NODAPL protestors and condemning recent violence shown to them by local police forces is slightly disappointing. I can only say that Hillary would be more receptive to discussions about DAPL than Trump, who hasn't shown much regard for Native American issues or Environmental issues during his campaign.

Hillary's Economic Policies:

1. Keep tax rates the same for most tax payers but add an additional bracket (the 4% "fair share surcharge") for those earning over $5 million to pay for programmes such as free college education for low and middle-income earners. This College Affordability Plan would spend $35 billion a year to refinance student debt and pay states to guarantee free tuition.
2. Hillary would create a 30% tax rate for those earning $1 million a year.
3. Hillary will raise the short term capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning $400,000 or more a year (only 0.5% of taxpayers).
4. Create a National Infrastructure Plan allocating $27.5 billion annually to improve US roads, bridges, public transportation, rail,  airports, water systems and Internet provision in rural areas.
5. Raise the National Minimum Wage to $15 an hour.
6. Limit the number of deductions taxpayers can claim at 28%.
7. Oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after much consideration over its validity and having discussed its popularity with fellow Dems including Bernie Sanders.
8. Extend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act so that a risk fee is levied on banks with more than $50 billion in assets, high debt to asset ratios or have a reliance on short term funding.
9. End corporate inversion so US companies cannot move their headquarters abroad to avoid paying US taxes. Propose an "exit tax" if they attempt to move abroad and pay American taxes on any deferred foreign earnings. These taxes could raise $80 billion a year!
10. Eliminate the carried interest tax.

Hillary's Foreign Policies and National Security Policies:

1. Increase co-operation with China whilst ensuring the US takes a stronger stance against China's human rights record.
2. Abide by the multinational nuclear deal (most focus on Iran) but reimpose sanctions if necessary.
3. Establish a no-fly zone over parts of Syria, conducting air strikes against ISIS and arming Kurdish and Sunni Arab fighters to defeat ISIS.
4. Prohibit the use of harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding on terrorists as they are unhelpful and inhumane- Trump wants to approve them.
5. Maintain current restrictions on National Security Agency surveillance (as defined under the USA Freedom Act) - Trump wants to reinstate the bulk surveillance program.
6. Increase sanctions against North Korea and ensure allies such as Japan and South Korea feel supported and protected.
7. Increase sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and ensure Baltic States are protected as per NATO agreements.

My view of Hillary's Foreign Policy:

I can understand the argument advanced by some progressives that Hillary isn't the "perfect candidate", especially when it comes to her foreign policies. The No-Fly zone in Syria and the re-commitment to fighting ISIS shows that she is hawkish but after years of fighting wars in the Middle East, Americans and Brits want to go through a period of peace. It is incorrect to assume Trump is any less of a hawk than Hillary though; his rhetoric on Syria, whilst it has been all over the place at times, seems to now indicate a desire to increase the Armed Forces (for example, increasing the number of Army soldiers from 490,000 to 540,000) to "defeat ISIS". If you're a fan of reducing military engagement and fostering peace (with all countries, not just Russia) it's probably not a good idea to vote for Trump. In fact I believe there's a strong chance Trump could provoke tensions if he is elected, especially in the Middle East.

What is great to see from Hillary in terms of her National Security and Foreign Policies is that she wants to close Guantanamo Bay and to prohibit the use of waterboarding techniques to torture terror suspects. As I wrote in my last blogpost on Trump, it is better to treat opponents with compassion rather than take away their humanity, even if they are accused of committing atrocities. The fact that Hillary is willing to challenge China on it's human rights record shows that Hillary cares about how others are treated.

Conclusion:
From having identified and examined a range of Hillary's policies, I can see that she is a woman who has truly thought about how to make America more diversity friendly and more environmentally friendly whilst at the same time not being afraid to make difficult decisions regarding foreign policy. I may not agree with every policy on her platform and I certainly have frowned a bit at her reluctance to engage openly on issues that Bernie Sanders cares about deeply-for example I can see from her platform that Hillary wants to bring pharmaceutical companies to heel to ensure they don't profit from HIV/AIDS patients or Autistic individuals who rely on lifelong medication but she hasn't talked about it in any great depth; Bernie has  made fighting pharmaceutical companies a major part of his own platform and he has gained many supporters as a result. However, one reason why I have come to respect Hillary over the past year is that she has been able to adapt her policy platform to make it more progressive: Bernie always made a point of stating in his rally speeches that the US should have a $15 an hour national minimum wage. Hillary saw how popular support for this policy was with Democrats and Independents and so has now made it central to her Economic Policy and she now mentions this during her rally speeches. I think it's amazing that Bernie had such a positive effect so as to convince Hillary that a Minimum Wage is essential to help improve the lives of ordinary working class and middle class Americans who may be working up to 50-60 hours a week to try and save enough money to buy a house or to attend college. Trump didn't seem to favour this important Bernie policy despite wanting to "appeal" to Bernie supporters but we all know whose side he is really on...his own and that of his wealthy Republican friends.

If you like the policies you have seen on my blogpost and are yet to vote in the US Election and aren't quite sure who to vote for, ask yourself this question: Do you want a President that cares about domestic social issues just as much as economic or foreign policy ones? If you think a President should espouse progressive values and be prepared to act on them and already has plans to be able to do this, then you must choose Hillary this Tuesday 8th November. If you believe in division rather than union or protecting the rights of those at the top without having a care for those who may be disabled or those facing abuse because of their gender identity or sexuality or duping those working class young adults labouring in entry-level jobs in catering or hospitality to earn enough money to be able to go to college to fulfill their dreams, vote Trump. The choice really couldn't be any clearer.

Why #ImWithHer (Hillary Clinton) Part 1: I'm #NeverTrump

"There is nothing more rare, nor more beautiful than a woman being unapologetically herself; comfortable in her own perfect imperfection". Steve Maraboli

I don't know where to begin with this blogpost. 2016 has been a year of political shake-ups of the super cray cray variety and not necessarily with the public's best interests in mind. Progressives have been steadily losing ground thanks to a whipping up of Islamophobic, anti immigration rhetoric by Alt-Right journalistic hacks and opportunistic partisan politicians who would rather divide us than bring us together to achieve their perverted ends. Terrorist attacks have been widely reported by the Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets with the blame being solely laid at Islam's door. Ordinary Muslims have been found guilty by association with radical terrorist groups and now feel less trusted and less welcome in the West than never before.

Brexit continues to concern me greatly, especially with the raft of legislative proposals that have been sneaked through the UK Parliament without much ability to scrutinise those measures in any great depth. Brexit voters are meant to have voted to leave the EU to "Take Back Control" of
Parliament in order to "Make Parliament Sovereign Again" but so far the decisions made re fracking in Lancashire, higher energy bills for consumers as a result of a deal between China, France's EDF and the Government to build a new nuclear power station (Hinckley Point C) and to build a third runaway at Heathrow do not seem to chime well with progressive voters. Nor with centrist/moderate like me either. I guess many will dismiss my concerns because I am a Remainer. My views have not changed. If you've been a keen blog reader of mine, you'd know I am a Remainer at heart, a globalist that believes more international cooperation on social issues such as abortion rights, workers rights, transparency and LGBTQIA rights is needed, not less.

Perhaps what is more troubling to me than lack of sovereignty being realised is that hate crime has risen in the UK as a result of the Brexit vote, with Eastern European immigrants and Muslims (both
British and foreign-born Citizens) feeling they are no longer valued for the solid contribution they have made to the success of the UK economy and society over the past 40 years. I feel the blame is truly misplaced; instead of mocking and insulting hard workers based on their nationality or creed, we should be blaming successful Governments for not investing enough in regional areas, especially in the North.

It's been quite sad to see a visceral amount of hate towards immigrants and Muslims also being emulated in US Presidential Election coverage. I've read on Twitter about a recent story (October 2016) about an Arizonan teacher telling a 10 year old Muslim student that he'll no longer be allowed to stay in the US if Donald Trump wins, purely based on his religion. Such statements get dismissed as "rare" by Trump supporters. However, having watched the US Election campaign unfold in its entirety (first time ever), I know that Trump's built his campaign around alienation tactics that were designed to only speak to a certain base: "angry white people" who hate progressive liberalism with a passion that could rival Jesus's unfiltered compassion.

Only recently, loud mouth Trash filled Donald Trump decided to stereotypically categorise Latino immigrants as "Nasty Hombres" and he is yet to fully row back his proposal to "Build a Wall" on the Mexican border and to make "Mexico Pay For It" (without ironically seeing that "illegal" immigrant builders might actually be helping to build the wall which is meant to "keep them out" in the first place). Donald Trump's campaign is all about "Building a Wall of Ideas"- whether it be preventing women and girls from obtaining an abortion when they have a right to choose what they want to do with their own bodies and lives, to allowing transgender, queer, gender-neutral/fluid folks to use the bathroom that most closely aligns to their gender or no gender. Trump never spoke openly against the draconian North Carolinian HB2 law; in fact he seems to suggest that LGBTQIA rights should be entirely devolved to state governments to decide, meaning that same sex marriage laws could come under threat in the event of a Trump presidency emboldening Alt-Right, homophobic conservatives to repeal rights at will to suit their own bigoted agendas, all in the name of "Christian ethical purity".

Trump can't help but be a beacon of "hope" for the Alt-Right media (essentially white supremacists/ fear mongers/ hate peddlers packaged under a new name to make them seem "hip"). When Trump make recourse to Lügenpresse principles (where the Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets are demonised as rigged to delegitimise any sentient analysis of a political candidate's personal/moral character temperament or even their basic policy details that would matter to ordinary Americans, unless the  MSM is critiquing their opponent(s), it leads to an emboldened enthusiasm from this crowd of self-confessed narcissists. They see Trump as a way of destroying the mainstream media outlets, silencing liberal opponents, repealing progressive laws, making American "Evangelical Christian" again at the expense of other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists. To use religious principles to control a woman's body by denying them abortion rights appears to be the very height of hypocrisy when they know Islamic terrorists use theirs to enforce an anti-LGBTQIA agenda on the Syrian people. The semantic battles surrounding Terrorism in America is just beyond uber stupid; we all know that some terrorists identify with Islam, regardless of whether you feel the need to use the "right term" to describe them. Yes Americans and Brits want solutions to prevent terror attacks from occurring in the West, but if you think putting an outright ban on foreign Muslims from entering the country or deporting domestic Muslim to internment camps will stop every attack from happening, you're living in cookoo land. The key is de-radicalisation schemes which allow close teamworking with liberal Muslims to try and combat fundamentalist Islamic Jihadi ideology, coupled with teamworking with allies in the Middle East (not just Russia) to destroy the capability of ISIS to destroy their dream of a "Hate Homeland State". You think Trump has the awareness or temperament needed to set up these teamworking schemes without peddling hate discourse against Muslims at the same time? Every speech, every press conference I've seen during the Republican primary and every Presidential debate/ supporter rally I've seen during the Presidential campaign makes me doubt his ability to foster appropriate relations with foreign powers. Unless you count Russia. Or North Korea. I'm guessing he goes down pretty well with any dictator/ autocrat that may be salivating at the prospect of a compromised USA over the next 4 years.

What makes me most angry at Trump even being a Presidential candidate is his treatment of women. I've seen and heard about some of the scandals- grabbing his daughter Ivanka by her chest in public being one which I guess is open to interpretation (I'd say he was grabbing inappropriately) but many are clear-cut examples of a man who has mastered the art of misogyny.

Recently, Trump has started a hate campaign against NBC reporter Katy Tur, who has been covering his rallies comprehensively since mid-2015 by bullying her during a rally in Miami, Florida. Apparently Trump was angry with the media for not accurately reporting the size of his rallies because the cameras "didn't show the crowd" to the public viewing NBC news at home. It's part of Trump "Winning" myth that he has to have the "biggest rallies" because it apparently shows he has the majority of support in the US needed to become POTUS. So he has a go at Katy in front of 4000 people which resulted in mass booing of her. OK it adds to the Lügenpresse dialogue mentioned earlier, but I don't think I've heard such an explicit attempt to humiliate a journalist by lying about her not doing her job when the camera playback shows she was actually doing her job well. Besides Katy isn't a camera-operator so isn't fully responsible for how NBC reports his rally. It just seems he wanted to bully a journalist in public and the journalist in question just happened to be female.

Trump's singling out of women and accusing them of mistakes doesn't seem to be a rare occurrence. Trump seems to have an on-going feud with female conservative presenter Megyn Kelly of Fox News
who dared to question Trump's moral character and misogyny head-on at the first Republican Presidential debate on August 6, 2015: "You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals." Trump twitter trolled Megyn by saying she "bombed" at the debate and "had blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her whatever" a deliberate alluding to women's menstruation cycles and an attempt to blame going through a "period" on Megyn Kelly's harsh criticism. Ironic that Megyn was only drawing attention to the fact that Trump had made misogynistic comments in the past and Trump answered that criticism with more misogyny. You'd think that would have reduced his support during the Primary but alas, No. Now Trump continues to attack Megyn Kelly and has emboldened supporters to use misogyny and slut shaming to carry on doing it for him; for example, Newt Gingrich blew up after Megyn tried to question him about Trump being labelled a "sexual predator" in the press and Gingrich accused her of being "fascinated with sex" to which Megyn replied "I'm fascinated by the protection of women, and understanding what we're getting in the Oval Office", which I feel was a most dignified response to Gingrich's unfounded insinuations.

The Gingrich Interview was an attempt by Trump to address a tape that was released by The Washington Post on October 7th, 2016 of a conversation between Access Hollywood presenter Billy Bush and Trump talking about women in an extremely lewd fashion in September 2005. Now I believe we all pretty much know the contents of the tape by now; a failed attempt at seducing Bush's co-presenter Nancy O'Dell who he moved on "very heavily" despite her married status. I don't think his comments about attempting to commit adultery shocked liberals particularly, it was more his demeaning of O'Dell's looks after she decided to go through breast-enlargement surgery that caused offence. Lookism seems to be at the heart of Trump's campaign against women. If they don't fancy him or they do something he disapproves of, he demeans them. Yet the worst comments came when Trump was talking about Arianne Zucker, whom he was going to meet in the recording. Trump was bragging that he could grab any woman by their genitals because they are objects drawn to him being in a position of power. Describing women as objects to be grabbed is the very essence of misogyny and Trump and his supporters must realise that it is not acceptable to demean women on tape knowing that other men/boys could follow his example and start treating women as "objects" that can be grabbed by their genital parts and can be rated out of 10, just because they are "stars" in a position of power afforded to them by cis-white patriarchal privilege. 

Now I know some are "forgiving" Trump for what he said on the 1996 tape because he offered a tepid, forced apology on camera (which I didn't feel was sincere, honest or even well thought out at the time) but his actions during the Presidential campaign have been nothing short of deplorable and entirely misogynistic. For example, in the second debate, Trump seemed to be hell bent on stalking Hillary around the stage rather than trying to engage with undecided voters. Moments where Trump was literally behind Hillary, leaning in on her, breathing behind her made me feel extremely uncomfortable. No man has a right to violate a woman's personal space and I'm in awe of the fact that Hillary didn't even flinch! I guess one reason why I love Hillary so much as a candidate is her refusal to let Trump intimidate her, to let him know he has knocked her self-confidence. Some interpret this as vanity but it is a sign of strength. FLOTUS Michelle Obama gave a voice to Hillary's lack of Trump-Flinching, something she shares with millions of members of Team #NeverTrump: "When he goes low, we go high".

Trump, unlike Hillary, never seems to be able to "turn the other cheek" when he gets challenged; it seems his only real "Trumpcard" is to threaten to sue them in the hope of intimidating them into silence. His Alt-Right supporters emulate this, falsely believing it is a "sign of strength" to intimidate, bully and slander. Yet when Hillary and her supporters get threatened with physical violence, illogical incarceration or assassination by the NRA "2A protection even at the cost of 1A" crew (btw not all gun owners belong to that crew) because of Trump emboldening them to do this, I can't see how anyone can vote for him. Honestly.

Hillary is an amazing candidate in her own right (I'll be demonstrating that in my second blogpost). However I know that some voters will be #NeverTrump and will vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson or the Independent candidate Evan McMullin. I am encouraged that there are voters who are prepared to exercise their democratic right to vote for whoever they choose to support and that they want to make the US less of a 2-party monopoly democracy. The movement of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic Primary (who I supported emphatically before Hillary won) was inspiring and showed that Millennials want to make their voices heard within the political system and fight against corruption and big business lobbying controls and fight for LGBTQIA and Pro Choice rights, Renewable Energy and Gun Sense policies. I believe that Bernie's message hasn't been in vain and that even if you have not voted for Hillary, you are at least engaged in progressive, liberal politics in some way. As for McMullin/Johnson voters, I guess I'm just grateful you didn't choose Trump. I am hopeful that Hillary will win the US election, if only by a whisker but all those voting against Trump will have the right to pat themselves on the back for saving the US and the international community from having to deal with a self confessed conspiracy peddling, xenophobic, misogynistic ego-maniac. I don't hate Trump as a human being; Jesus taught us to love our enemies as we would love ourselves as Luke 6:27-32 tells us: "But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." This is the essence of the FLOTUS's "When they go low, you go high" message, founded in Christian doctrine from over 2000 years ago. I pity Trump for his need to be bitter and unforgiving towards those who differ ideologically from him. I hope one day Trump will be able to follow Jesus's example and be prepared to "turn the other cheek" instead of trying to sue his opponents on a daily basis.
  

Hate Crime- What Do Trans People Think About It?: A UK Analysis

Compassion is one of the buzzwords I have been using rather a lot during my blog's existence. It's one of the qualities I look for in a Bessie buddy, work colleague or employer. More often than not we are wrapped up in trying to satisfy our own egos that we forget to demonstrate compassion to our opponents/enemies as well as to our friends. It can be difficult to be level headed when someone hurls a "you look like Mrs Brown but in Norwegian troll form" insult down the local bar but how you respond I believe shows your true nature. Yes, most people wouldn't batter an eyelid if you only heard this insult once in your life, being uttered by an ill dressed stranger who's probably on his way to get absolutely bladdered to try and forget his own reprobate life back home. Yet what happens if you suffer from daily systematic bursts of name-calling from your so-called "friendly" neighbours? What happens if the name-calling leads to vicious emails, deliberate social media trolling and shaming, veiled death threats or wild paedophilic accusations? Heaven forbid, what would happen if that name calling that you ignored from neighbours lead to actual physical and sexual abuse, such as oral rape by those neighbours concerned? If you had only spoken up and reported the name-calling to the police, surely it would have put the local beat PCSO/PC on notice to check up on you to make sure you were alright and warn the neighbours about their poisonous, vile behaviour? You'd think any rational police officer/PCSO would do this for any of his/her/their residents? After all his/her/their duty is to "protect and serve" the local population. So why are so many trans people afraid to report hate incidents? Why don't they understand the nature of hate crime means some hate incidents will be classified as an actual crime? Why don't PCSOs encourage more trans people to report hate incidents/crimes?

What IS the difference between a hate incident and a hate crime?
Luckily for "hate crime" deniers there is a common, relatively easy to understand set of definitions that have been agreed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and UK Policing bodies:

Hate incidents:
Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else thinks it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of these characteristics:

• disability
• race
• religion
• transgender identity (as opposed to Gender Reassignment protected characteristic in the Equality Act)
• sexual orientation.

If you feel that something is a hate incident it must be recorded as such by the person you are speaking to. All police forces report hate crime based on these five characteristics.

Hate Crimes:
Any incident which leads to breaking the law which has been motivated by prejudice/discrimination based on one or more of the five characteristics stated above will be classified as a hate crime.

Here's a simplified table to show some links between hate incidents and hate crimes:

Type of Hate Offence	Can it be recorded as a Hate Incident?	Can it be recorded as a Hate Crime?
Verbal abuse- e.g. name calling	Yes
Harassment (as defined under the Equality Act – see my post on HR- trans people protected under transsexual label within Gender Reassignment protected characteristic)	Yes	Yes
Bullying/Intimidation in public- (e.g. Section 4-Fear or Provocation of Violence, Public Order Act, 1988)	Yes	Yes
Physical Abuse-hitting/punching/spitting (e.g. Section 3, Affray under Public Order Act, 1988)	Yes	Yes
Sexual assault	Yes	Yes
Damage to home/car- e.g. transphobic graffiti	Yes	Yes
Burglary	Yes	Yes
Hate Mail (as defined under the Malicious Communications Act, 1988)	Yes	Yes
Online Trolling/Abuse- e.g. on Twitter/Facebook social media platforms	Yes
Fraud	Yes	Yes
Coercion and Control by a partner because of trans status (covered under the new DVA regulations which came into effect from Dec, 2015)	Yes	Yes

There are no specific transphobic crimes currently identified under the law, but certain incidents will be considered hate crimes if they break an existing law- e.g. if there is a sustained level of verbal abuse by a number of individuals who are local to you (neighbours) and they do not desist from these activities when asked to do so by the police, they could be given an ASBO (Anti Social Behaviour Order) where they have to abide by a set of rules for 2 years or face a fine of £1,000 if they are a young offender or up to £5,000 and 5 years in prison if they are an adult offender).
or end up being prosecuted under the Public Order Act, 1988 or for breaching the Equality Act, 2010, dependent on the nature of the offence and evidence provided by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). As well as reporting the abuse to the police, you can get your local authority/landlord to take action against the neighbours concerned using their anti-social behaviour powers. You can also take the perpetrators to civil court to be compensated for your experience and to get them to desist from carrying on their behaviour using the Protection from Harassment Act, 1997 (which can led to ASBOs being awarded too).

It's interesting to note that according to the Citizen's Advice Bureau (CAB website, "when someone is charged with a homophobic or transphobic hate crime, the judge can impose a tougher sentence on the offender under the Criminal Justice Act 2003." However, regardless of how the incident may look within the prism of LGBT hostility/prejudice/discrimination, the offence may still be seen as a crime even if it was not motivated by your transgender identity.

With so much legislation and guidance in place, why have there been so few public prosecutions reported by the mainstream media? Why do victims who report hate crime feel unsupported?

My Survey:
According to The Independent article written by Peter Yeung in July 2016, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/transphobic-hate-crime-statistics-violence-transgender-uk-police-a7159026.html
there has been a 170% rise in transphobic hate crimes being reported to police, yet there were only 582 offences reported in total in the year and reports only came from 26/45 UK police forces. Yeung concluded that the "low prosecution rates  (19 in 2015, falling from 22 in 2014 according to 15/26 UK forces) and "lack of police training on trans issues" were to blame for such low levels of reporting.

So I wanted to see how a small group of trans respondents (not assorted by gender or sexuality preference) reacted to a series of hate offences being offered as potential hate crimes to see whether they would report such crimes to the local police force if they became a victim themselves of that crime. I carried out a poll with Facebook Trans-Rights group to see what trans people thought about denotations of hate crime. Some examples I gave are currently perceived as hate incidents whilst others are firm examples of hate crime. I reprint the poll results below: (conducted 13-14th September 2016).

Which of the following would you say needs to be reported to your local police force as a hate crime? (feel free to add any suggestions- no suggestions were added):

Type of Hate Offence	Number of respondents
Receiving daily targeted, hate emails/letters from a TERF (a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist)	54
Being called "tranny" or "shemale" in the street by a stranger	49
Being told you cannot use the bathroom that corresponds to your chosen gender	47
Distribution of discriminatory trans literature by a Christian group- e.g. Westboro Baptist Church	45
Having a drink thrown over you in a (cisgender) nightclub	33
Trans on Trans Insults -e.g. lookism/passability related.	7

Analysis:
Most respondents believed hate emails/letters from feminists who identify openly as being anti-trans should be classified as a hate crime, along with stranger verbal abuse and employers/colleagues/strangers blocking bathroom access. The high response rate tallies with common views espoused by the trans community irrespective of transition status, gender preference or sexual orientation.

However trans-on-trans insults/verbal abuse doesn't seem to figure as a hate crime towards trans people, which is rather shocking considering the recent Body Positive and anti-lookism movements within transfeminism aimed at helping trans people be proud of their bodies and appearance. With this being such a contentious issue and needs covering in its own right (after further investigation) I shall deal with it in my next blogpost.

It came to my attention that some respondents felt the current police quality standards system were ineffective. For example, Colin, a trans- guy in Guildford, Surrey contacted me to say that he'd reported more than 20 examples of hate crime to his local police station but received no responses; they had "disappeared into silent bureaucracy". Strangely, Colin was only following advice given on the Citizen's Advice Bureau (CAB) page to report all hate crime/incidents in an attempt to prevent them escalating into more serious incidents. It transpired that he'd met with the local chief of police to discuss his experiences, yet nothing actually changed as a result of that meeting. All buzzwords and compliments but no concrete action to address the direct concerns that he had outlined in the hate crime reports that he had submitted. The fact no action had been taken has led to him deciding not to "go out" anymore. We often forget that victims of hate crime can become reclusive as a result of receiving sustained abuse from local residents. Colin even linked his experience to that of social class: "I have a saying about surrey ive lived here most of my life born here its a saying 'the poorer you are the more acid is going to be thrown at you' seems true around here!" This seems to have been compounded by the fact that Colin informed me that there had been no LAGLO (Lesbian and Gay Liaison Officer who is designated by a force to help LGBTQIA people) representation at Croydon Pride; you see them in abundance in Manchester and at the main London pride events so I shall be seeing whether a Lincs LAGLO turns up to Lincoln Pride on the 24th September so I can ask them specifically about hate crime prevention and prosecution in Lincolnshire.

Joanne, a trans lady told me she was so afraid of the police as a result of her experience of hate crime that she can't bring herself to report it (she has now been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and is now recovering slowly). Ryan, a trans male teenager told me he gets called "tranny" on a daily basis by his neighbours but he feels there is no point reporting them to the police because his concerns wouldn't get taken seriously. His family are equally unsupportive so he can't wait to move out and attend college where he hopes he will be valued and treated with compassion.

Jacqueline told me that she was trying to find out who had send hate mail to her estranged parents about her because of her transgender status. The perpetrator was successfully prosecuted but she never found out who they were because her parents refused to tell her (despite "taking great delight" in revealing the contents of the letter) and the police refused to tell her, citing "confidentiality" as the main reason. This shows that trans hate crimes may end up with a perpetrator being prosecuted but without the intended victim ever finding out about it. Could this be considered a miscarriage of justice?

Finally there were trans people who wanted to reduce the hate crime label down to specific areas. Sophie suggested that most of the verbal abuse reports would be "petty", including any relating to trans-trans insulting. Toilet/bathroom wise Sophie said it depended on "whether they were public or private"; I'd say most respondents were thinking about being barred from public bathroom use but if their parents/siblings prevented them from using a bathroom in the house once they reveal their transgender status it could be perceived as a form of abuse and thus a hate crime. Interestingly Sophie didn't mention malicious communication, which could indicate either non-interest or unsure of her answer. With this mix of understanding on what constitutes hate offences, hate crimes and whether to report them, it is clear to see the police, LGBT charities and support services have a lot more to do raise awareness. But why would some trans people think even reporting an act of physical abuse as a trans hate crime might be a "waste of time"? 

Some suggestions offered as to why transgender hate crime legislation seems so ineffective:

• Belief that there is "no such thing as hate crime"- that it has been created by "Luvvie Lefties" to hamper freedom of speech using "Political Correctness" banner. (That may be true when it comes to verbal abuse/online abuse but what about intimidation/sustained harassment/physical violence?)
• Lack of education within the police force about hate incidents and hate crime generally-e.g. police and victims may not even see any hate incidents as "crimes", especially if they involve online abuse through emails/social media or is perpetrated by parents/siblings/family members.
• Lack of awareness of how hate crime legislation can be seen through the transgender identity prism.
• Is a PCSO equipped to deal with resolving hate crime alone? Should there always be a PC or senior PCSO with them to make sure they record the crime thoroughly and classify it correctly?
• Innate prejudice of police officers/support services derived from environmental factors-e.g. religious preference/sexual orientation/political ideologies. Has the police officer/PCSO ever spoken to a trans person for any length of time before? Do they know how to handle a case sensitively-e.g. making sure to use correct pronouns, talk in an appropriate tone, be reassuring?
• Not enough resources to deal with resolving hate crimes; police departments are overstretched due to budget cuts being implemented by Whitehall so there may be reductions in specialist front-line staff who are trained in dealing with LGBTQIA community issues.
• Do the CPS ultimately believe they can take the perpetrator to court to be charged in the first place?
• Will the CPS be able to secure any level of prosecution for the victim; if only 22 people were convicted under hate crime legislation, is it effective enough?
• What if one person views it as hate crime even after a successful prosecution but 99 others don't- who will the public end up believing Will they ever believe the hate crime victim?

Conclusion:
At first glance, it appears that transphobic hate crimes are starting to be taken seriously by the police.  Peter Yeung's article has shown reporting rates have increased, especially among trans female victims. There appears to be a commitment from senior political and policing figures such as Angela Rayner, Shadow Women and Equalities Sec and Jane Sawyers, the National Police Chiefs lead for LGBT issues to increase training opportunities for police officers to give them the knowledge to "challenge hate and reduce the harm that it causes". However, as my survey and personal responses to hate incidents being categorised as transphobic hate crime have shown, public confidence in the police to deal with trans hate crime is dented at grassroots level. Successful criminal prosecutions have fallen,  hate crime reports are knowingly being filed under "cannot be bothered to investigate" and trans awareness of hate incidents and hate crime hasn't necessarily led to an increase in reporting amongst trans men. The progress has been satisfactory but there is no gold rosette in sight yet. I look forward to exploring ways of improving the reporting experience for trans people, talking to individuals such as my local LAGLO about what they believe will help reduce offending rates and increase reporting rates and working with charities such as Gender Free DV to address links between trans hate crime and trans domestic violence.