• Go woke, go broke

    From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Wed Jun 24 22:37:36 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    The Durham and Darlington NHS Trust has just forked out -u187,000 in
    damages to a group of nurses whom it forced to share a changing room
    with a man who pretended to be a woman. In addition, the Trust has a
    legal bill of -u600,000 for its own expenses and will have to cover the
    legal costs of the nurses, which are likely to be as much again.

    Unfortunately, the old adage "go woke, go broke" will not apply in this
    case. Instead of the persons responsible for this policy being forced to
    pay for their vicious stupidity, the money will come out of Trust funds (either directly or through increased legal insurance costs) which means
    that patients are the ones who will suffer.

    The Trust has been forced to abandon its "Transitioning in the
    Workplace" policy which claimed that it was designed to "create a safe
    and productive workplace environment for all". In fact it destroyed the
    safe and productive environment for women in favour of catering to the
    sick fantasies of a single man who claimed to be a woman.

    Ridiculously, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has brought charges of misconduct against four of the nurses - they are guilty of "hate crime".
    We can but hope that the woke Council will look at how much such an
    attitude has cost Durham and Darlington Trust and decide that being
    trendy is a bit too expensive a pastime to be worth pursuing.

    Or perhaps they can look at the Good Book and remember that when God
    made humans "male and female created He them" - not 197 genders (or
    whatever the latest figure is) but just two.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From GB@NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid to uk.religion.christian on Fri Jun 26 17:20:05 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 24/06/2026 22:37, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    The Durham and Darlington NHS Trust has just forked out -u187,000 in
    damages to a group of nurses whom it forced to share a changing room
    with a man who pretended to be a woman. In addition, the Trust has a
    legal bill of -u600,000 for its own expenses and will have to cover the legal costs of the nurses, which are likely to be as much again.

    Unfortunately, the old adage "go woke, go broke" will not apply in this case. Instead of the persons responsible for this policy being forced to
    pay for their vicious stupidity, the money will come out of Trust funds (either directly or through increased legal insurance costs) which means that patients are the ones who will suffer.

    The Trust has been forced to abandon its "Transitioning in the
    Workplace" policy which claimed that it was designed to "create a safe
    and productive workplace environment for all". In fact it destroyed the
    safe and productive environment for women in favour of catering to the
    sick fantasies of a single man who claimed to be a woman.

    Ridiculously, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has brought charges of misconduct against four of the nurses - they are guilty of "hate crime".
    We can but hope that the woke Council will look at how much such an
    attitude has cost Durham and Darlington Trust and decide that being
    trendy is a bit too expensive a pastime to be worth pursuing.

    Or perhaps they can look at the Good Book and remember that when God
    made humans "male and female created He them" - not 197 genders (or
    whatever the latest figure is) but just two.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down


    The problem with your post is that these are not your real reasons. I
    imagine that you don't give a damn about the 4 nurses, and are only a
    bit more worried about the NHS wasting money.

    You are anti-trans for honestly held religious reasons. That is a
    position that a person can decently and logically hold. So, why advance
    other reasons?





    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Fri Jun 26 18:56:00 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 26/06/2026 17:20, GB wrote:

    The problem with your post is that these are not your real reasons. I imagine that you don't give a damn about the 4 nurses, and are only a
    bit more worried about the NHS wasting money.

    On the contrary, I feel deep sympathy for these women forced to undress
    and dress in front of a bearded man - and then threatened with wholly
    bogus claims of "hate crime" just because they protested. If the
    government is serious about reforming the NHS, its first step should be
    to sack everyone who is not medical, maintenance or cleaning staff.
    There would be fewer dead babies, for instance, if those mis-managers
    had all be sacked ten years ago.

    You are anti-trans for honestly held religious reasons. That is a
    position that a person can decently and logically hold. So, why advance other reasons?
    I advanced both because both are relevant.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From GB@NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid to uk.religion.christian on Sat Jun 27 19:36:00 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 26/06/2026 18:56, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 26/06/2026 17:20, GB wrote:

    The problem with your post is that these are not your real reasons. I
    imagine that you don't give a damn about the 4 nurses, and are only a
    bit more worried about the NHS wasting money.

    On the contrary, I feel deep sympathy for these women forced to undress
    and dress in front of a bearded man - and then threatened with wholly
    bogus claims of "hate crime" just because they protested. If the
    government is serious about reforming the NHS, its first step should be
    to sack everyone who is not medical, maintenance or cleaning staff.

    Well, you may as well sack everyone, because you haven't included the
    payroll staff in the 'to be retained' list. So, nobody would be paid,
    and however dedicated the staff are they can't survive on air.

    And you couldn't re-recruit them, because you've sacked HR.

    You've sacked the guy who orders food for the kitchens, But that doesn't matter, because you've sacked the cooks.

    You've sacked the porters, so all the dead bodies stacking up will have
    to stay on the wards. Which is just as well, because you've sacked the mortuary attendants.

    :)





    There would be fewer dead babies, for instance, if those mis-managers
    had all be sacked ten years ago.

    You are anti-trans for honestly held religious reasons. That is a
    position that a person can decently and logically hold. So, why
    advance other reasons?
    I advanced both because both are relevant.






    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down





    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Sat Jun 27 20:43:50 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 27/06/2026 19:36, GB wrote:

    And you couldn't re-recruit them, because you've sacked HR.

    Did you see the report about some company that has recently sacked its
    whole HR department, on the basis that it was responsible for all the HR problems that cropped up.

    As for the rest, they could easily come under maintenance, though to be honest, if they sacked all the cooks and kitchen staff, the health of
    the patients would probably improve.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John@megane.06@gmail.com to uk.religion.christian on Sun Jun 28 13:28:57 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 26/06/2026 18:56, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 26/06/2026 17:20, GB wrote:

    The problem with your post is that these are not your real reasons. I
    imagine that you don't give a damn about the 4 nurses, and are only a
    bit more worried about the NHS wasting money.

    On the contrary, I feel deep sympathy for these women forced to undress
    and dress in front of a bearded man - and then threatened with wholly
    bogus claims of "hate crime" just because they protested. If the
    government is serious about reforming the NHS, its first step should be
    to sack everyone who is not medical, maintenance or cleaning staff.
    There would be fewer dead babies, for instance, if those mis-managers
    had all be sacked ten years ago.

    I was staying out of this thread but where is your evidence that the
    nurses were force to change in front of a bearded man? In the pictures
    I've seen, Rose Henderson is unbearded.

    But I thought you would be in total support of a bearded person being in
    a female changing room if they were a trans man, after all they would be biologically female.



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Sun Jun 28 20:34:00 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 28/06/2026 13:28, John wrote:

    I was staying out of this thread but where is your evidence that the
    nurses were force to change in front of a bearded man?-a In the pictures I've seen, Rose Henderson is unbearded.

    I decline to comment about your hormone levels, but I can assure you
    that at the end of a long shift I am distinctly bearded, even if
    clean-shaven at the start.

    But I thought you would be in total support of a bearded person being in
    a female changing room if they were a trans man, after all they would be biologically female.

    I suggest you try and keep up with the news as reported in the national
    press. Doing so would save you embarrassing yourself with foolish comments.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John@megane.06@gmail.com to uk.religion.christian on Mon Jun 29 09:26:58 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 28/06/2026 20:34, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 28/06/2026 13:28, John wrote:

    I was staying out of this thread but where is your evidence that the
    nurses were force to change in front of a bearded man?-a In the
    pictures I've seen, Rose Henderson is unbearded.

    I decline to comment about your hormone levels, but I can assure you
    that at the end of a long shift I am distinctly bearded, even if clean- shaven at the start.

    I have a 5 o'clock shadow, but I'd hardly call it a beard. Fair haired
    people probably could go a couple of days without shaving. If Rose
    Henderson was undergoing harmone treatment it is highly unlikely she
    would be sprouting any facial hair.

    But I thought you would be in total support of a bearded person being
    in a female changing room if they were a trans man, after all they
    would be biologically female.

    I suggest you try and keep up with the news as reported in the national press. Doing so would save you embarrassing yourself with foolish comments.

    It's a perfectly legitimate question, if people such as yourself are
    insisting trans folk should use changing rooms appropriate to their
    biological sex then you should have no issue with a trans man using a
    female changing room. I wonder how those nurses would have reacted if
    that were the situation and not a trans woman.



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Tue Jun 30 06:25:34 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 29/06/2026 09:26, John wrote:

    It's a perfectly legitimate question, if people such as yourself are insisting trans folk should use changing rooms appropriate to their biological sex then you should have no issue with a trans man using a
    female changing room.-a I wonder how those nurses would have reacted if
    that were the situation and not a trans woman.
    I have no idea how the nurses would have reacted. Possibly they would
    have been equally uncomfortable, but perhaps you would care to explain
    why the rights of one person who is mentally ill should override the
    rights of many perfectly normal people?

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From GB@NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid to uk.religion.christian on Tue Jun 30 14:55:50 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 30/06/2026 06:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 29/06/2026 09:26, John wrote:

    It's a perfectly legitimate question, if people such as yourself are
    insisting trans folk should use changing rooms appropriate to their
    biological sex then you should have no issue with a trans man using a
    female changing room.-a I wonder how those nurses would have reacted if
    that were the situation and not a trans woman.
    I have no idea how the nurses would have reacted. Possibly they would
    have been equally uncomfortable, but perhaps you would care to explain
    why the rights of one person who is mentally ill should override the
    rights of many perfectly normal people?

    The mentally ill ones are the ones making a heck of a fuss about
    nothing? Is that your point?

    Actually, it's not a fuss about nothing. It's an opportunity to weep
    crocodile tears and get lots of compo.





    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down





    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Wed Jul 1 06:27:37 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 30/06/2026 14:55, GB wrote:

    The mentally ill ones are the ones making a heck of a fuss about
    nothing? Is that your point?

    It says a lot about you that you can describe women being forced to
    undress in front of a man as "a fuss about nothing". That is a
    despicable comment that only a man would make. I presume you would be delighted to undress in front of women and flaunt yourself at them, but
    women - apart from professionals who are paid for doing so - do not want
    to undress in front of men.

    Actually, it's not a fuss about nothing. It's an opportunity to weep crocodile tears and get lots of compo.
    Again, despicable.

    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John@megane.06@gmail.com to uk.religion.christian on Wed Jul 1 12:19:25 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 30/06/2026 06:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 29/06/2026 09:26, John wrote:

    It's a perfectly legitimate question, if people such as yourself are
    insisting trans folk should use changing rooms appropriate to their
    biological sex then you should have no issue with a trans man using a
    female changing room.-a I wonder how those nurses would have reacted if
    that were the situation and not a trans woman.

    I have no idea how the nurses would have reacted. Possibly they would
    have been equally uncomfortable, but perhaps you would care to explain
    why the rights of one person who is mentally ill should override the
    rights of many perfectly normal people?

    Does the NHS recognise transgenderism as a mental illness?



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Stuart@Spambin@argonet.co.uk to uk.religion.christian on Wed Jul 1 12:00:03 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    In article <1122t3u$1qi5g$1@dont-email.me>,
    John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 30/06/2026 06:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 29/06/2026 09:26, John wrote:

    It's a perfectly legitimate question, if people such as yourself are
    insisting trans folk should use changing rooms appropriate to their
    biological sex then you should have no issue with a trans man using a
    female changing room. I wonder how those nurses would have reacted if
    that were the situation and not a trans woman.

    I have no idea how the nurses would have reacted. Possibly they would
    have been equally uncomfortable, but perhaps you would care to explain
    why the rights of one person who is mentally ill should override the rights of many perfectly normal people?

    Does the NHS recognise transgenderism as a mental illness?

    Probably not, anymore than it recognises homosexual desires as mental
    illness.
    --
    Stuart Winsor

    Tools With A Mission
    sending tools across the world
    http://www.twam.co.uk/
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Wed Jul 1 20:45:43 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 01/07/2026 12:19, John wrote:

    Does the NHS recognise transgenderism as a mental illness?
    What does that have to do with anything? Many things are not recognised
    as mental illnesses until well down the line. The definition of mental
    illness is constantly being updated (and not always for the better.
    After all, at one time homosexuality was considered a mental illness!)

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John@megane.06@gmail.com to uk.religion.christian on Thu Jul 2 01:07:49 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 01/07/2026 20:45, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 01/07/2026 12:19, John wrote:

    Does the NHS recognise transgenderism as a mental illness?

    What does that have to do with anything? Many things are not recognised
    as mental illnesses until well down the line. The definition of mental illness is constantly being updated (and not always for the better.
    After all, at one time homosexuality was considered a mental illness!)

    The answer is no then!!

    Transgenderism isn't exactly new. Surgery was first performed in 1930,
    so your claim that it's a mental illness is an opinion, somehow stated
    as fact.






    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Thu Jul 2 05:23:56 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 02/07/2026 01:07, John wrote:

    Transgenderism isn't exactly new. Surgery was first performed in 1930,
    so your claim that it's a mental illness is an opinion, somehow stated
    as fact.
    Lobotomies were also performed back in the 1930s. Does that somehow
    prove that schizophrenia or depression are not a mental illness?

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From GB@NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid to uk.religion.christian on Thu Jul 2 12:29:52 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 01/07/2026 06:27, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 30/06/2026 14:55, GB wrote:

    The mentally ill ones are the ones making a heck of a fuss about
    nothing? Is that your point?

    It says a lot about you that you can describe women being forced to
    undress in front of a man as "a fuss about nothing". That is a
    despicable comment that only a man would make.

    It's not at all despicable. People have different ideas of prudishness.
    I'm quite sure half the women complaining walk around swimming pools in bikinis, which is more undressed than they are in a work changing room.
    If they are nurses, they must be very very familiar with seeing men
    undressed.



    I presume you would be
    delighted to undress in front of women and flaunt yourself at them,

    Now, that IS a despicable comment. You should be ashamed of yourself - particularly as a moderator.


    but
    women - apart from professionals who are paid for doing so - do not want
    to undress in front of men.

    Have you not heard of naturism? It's not everyone's thing, but it's
    perfectly natural and normal.






    Actually, it's not a fuss about nothing. It's an opportunity to weep
    crocodile tears and get lots of compo.
    Again, despicable.

    Nothing made them sue the health authority except pure greed.





    Kendall K. Down





    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Fri Jul 3 06:04:14 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 02/07/2026 12:29, GB wrote:

    It's not at all despicable. People have different ideas of prudishness.
    I'm quite sure half the women complaining walk around swimming pools in bikinis, which is more undressed than they are in a work changing room.
    If they are nurses, they must be very very familiar with seeing men undressed.

    While it is true that people have different ideas, the fact is that
    these women felt uncomfortable about undressing in front of a man. Are
    you saying that they should be penalised for their particular feelings?
    That they *must* undress because *you* think they should.

    I presume you would be delighted to undress in front of women and
    flaunt yourself at them,

    Now, that IS a despicable comment. You should be ashamed of yourself - particularly as a moderator.

    So why is it ok for you to demand that women undress in front of a man
    but oh so terrible when I suggest that you should undress in front of
    women? This wouldn't be the famous double-standard, would it?

    Have you not heard of naturism? It's not everyone's thing, but it's perfectly natural and normal.

    Again, it's not everyone's thing - but you are demanding that women who
    are upset should be forced to have your attitude. You, *as a man* are demanding that women should do something that you personally are happy
    doing.

    Nothing made them sue the health authority except pure greed.

    Rubbish. They sued the health authority 1) to ensure that they were
    given a women-only space (as is their right), and 2) on behalf of all
    women everywhere who face similar situations. It is not just one health authority which is ignoring common sense and legal rulings.

    And before you go bleating about how dreadful it is that the health
    authority has been dunned for a large amount of money, a) the health
    authority could have avoided the whole thing by listening to the women
    and taking action immediately instead of insisting on following its woke agenda; b) I totally agree that the health authority should not have to
    pay these damages. They should be taken out of the individual salaries
    of all those responsible for this disgraceful policy. Every board member
    who voted to allow men into female changing rooms should have to fork
    out to cover the cost. It's easy to be woke and illegal when you know
    that you, personally, will not suffer any consequences.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2