JK Rowling accuses trans activist of ‘low blow' over Wayne Couzens jibe
India Willoughby, a former news presenter, has become a vocal advocate for the transgender movement and the right to self-identity as a given gender.
The 59-year-old wrote on X that Couzens, the policeman who raped and murdered Sarah Everard in 2021, would 'have loved' the decision of the Supreme Court that 'women' refers to those who are biologically female.
The oblique attack on the decision hailed by gender-critical campaigners as a victory for women's rights has been criticised by the Harry Potter author Rowling.
Rowling responded to Willoughby: 'Rapists and woman-killers tend not to 'love' legal restrictions on where and how they can access vulnerable females. If you're capable of feeling shame, India, now would be the moment.'
Previous clashes between the pair led to Rowling being reported to the police by Willoughby last year for referring to the broadcaster as a man. Northumbria Police found that Rowling's comment did not meet criminal threshold.
Willoughby led a double life for several years from 2010 – as a woman through the week before returning to the role of a father at the weekend, according to a 2016 interview with the Daily Express.
The former ITV and Channel 5 journalist has made numerous TV appearances on Loose Women, GB News and Good Morning Britain to talk about being transgender.
In 2017, Willoughby was interviewed by Jenni Murray on the BBC's Woman's Hour and later complained about the experience, writing: 'I'd gone on expecting a nice chat, but she was horrendous from the start.
'It felt like I was being cross-examined for a murder by a beady old owl. The whole thing was geared to questioning whether I was 'real'.'
Public bodies have been left under pressure to tear up pro-trans guidance following the Supreme Court ruling on April 17.
Expected changes include who can access single-sex NHS wards, which police officers can carry out strip searches and who can join female teams in elite sports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trump abruptly nixes signing of executive order to punish American flag burners sparking White House confusion
President Donald Trump is apparently torn over whether to ignite a tinderbox over a plan to throw the book at American flag burners. Trump abruptly cancelled the signing of an executive order on Thursday seeking to punish Americans for burning the U.S. flag. According to multiple reports, Trump planned to sign an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to bring charges against individuals who burn the stars and stripes. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag during a protest is a protected form of free speech. Under Trump's order that's now on hold, the DOJ would review already existing cases of flag burning to see if other charges unrelated to the flag burning could be brought forward. For example, the order reportedly directed the DOJ to prosecute protesters for crimes such as public nuisance or disorderly conduct laws, according to a report from NewsNation. It is not clear if Trump plans to sign the executive order at a later date, or if it's being cancelled permanently. The Daily Mail reached out to the White House for comment. Since the start of his career in politics, Trump has advocated for imposing legal penalties on protesters who destroy the American flag despite the Supreme Court's prior ruling. In the past, the president has called for stripping the citizenship from naturalized American citizens who burn the flag and advocated for jail time as a punishment. Trump during the 2024 campaign season even floated the idea of introducing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning as a form of protected protest. Amid the anti-ICE protests in LA, Trump called for throwing demonstrators in jail for a year for setting the flag on fire. 'These are animals, but they proudly carry the flags of other countries. They don't carry the American flag,' Trump told a crowd of servicemembers at Fort Bragg. 'They only burn it. Did you see a lot of the flags being burned?" He added, 'They weren't being burned by people from our country, or from people that love our country. People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year.' Trump then claimed that he's working with lawmakers in DC to push through legislation outlawing flag burning. 'We'll see if we can get that done. We're going to try and get that done. We're working with some of your senators.'
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court lets Trump cut diversity-related NIH grants
Aug 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court let President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants for research related to racial minorities or LGBT people, part of his crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and transgender identity. The justices granted the Justice Department's request to lift Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young's decision in June that the grant terminations violated federal law, while a legal challenge brought by researchers and 16 U.S. states plays out in a lower court. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical research. The cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the U.S. government, slash federal spending and end government support for programs aimed at promoting diversity or "gender ideology" that the administration opposes. The administration said Young's ruling required the NIH to continue paying $783 million in grants that run counter to its priorities. The administration repeatedly has sought the Supreme Court's intervention to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. After Trump signed executive orders in January targeting DEI and gender ideology, NIH instructed staff to terminate grant funding for "low-value and off-mission" studies deemed related to these concepts, as well as COVID-19 and ways to curb vaccine hesitancy. Young's ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" targeting projects based on "vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led. The plaintiffs said the terminated grants included projects on breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, HIV prevention, suicide, depression and other conditions that often disproportionately burden minority communities, as well as grants mandated by Congress to train and support a diverse group of scientists in biomedical research. Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, invalidated the grant terminations in June. In a written ruling, the judge said they were "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious," violating a federal law governing the actions of agencies. During a June hearing in the case, Young rebuked the administration for what he called a "darker aspect" to the case that the cuts represent "racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community." "I've never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable," the judge said. Young also said the cuts were designed to stop research that bears on the health of the LGBT community. "That's appalling," the judge said. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18 denied the administration's request to put Young's decision on hold. The administration has argued that the litigation should have been brought in a different judicial body, the Washington-based Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in money damages claims against the U.S. government. That reasoning was also the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in April that let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants also targeted under the DEI crackdown.
Daily Record
3 hours ago
- Daily Record
Emmerdale's Mackenzie Boyd killed by crossbow after John Sugden showdown
The Dales' notorious villain John Sugden struck again in Thursday night's episode. Emmerdale's Thursday night episode (August 21) showed some cut-throat scenes, as Mackenzie Boyd became John Sugden's latest victim. John shot Mack with a bow and arrow before hitting him over the head with a giant rock in the latest gory episode of the ITV soap. Mack had uncovered evidence that proved John was lying, and keeping some dark secrets. But villain John realised Mack was onto him, which led to a confrontation where Mack told John he knew he was the one who killed Nate Robinson. With John making it clear he could not let Mack get out of the situation alive, Mack ran for his life through the woods, only to be caught and seemingly murdered by the Emmerdale killer. It comes after recent reports claimed Mack would be killed off, with actor Lawrence Robb said to be leaving the ITV soap, reported The Mirror. At the end of Wednesday's episode we saw Mack make the worrying realisation that John was hiding a huge secret. He found a scrapbook from John's army days and in it was a photo of John with a man named Ben. But Mack already knew Ben, having met him in the shop earlier that day. He confirmed he was the removal man who had collected Nate Robinson's belongings, which the police now know was organised by Nate's killer. Fans know John murdered Nate and disposed of his body in the lake, before making it look as though Nate had moved away. He had the belongings collected and burned them, while Ben was seemingly under the impression he was talking with Nate. So on Wednesday he claimed to the police that he had no idea Nate was dead and had been the entire time, before identifying Owen as the man he met with to hand over the belongings. Of course this was a lie as Owen was the man John had framed for Nate's death after his own demise weeks ago. Mack put the pieces together and realised John had killed Nate and then asked his pal Ben to pose as a removal guy to get his belongings. He worked this out via the photo, and John realised he had been rumbled. So what ensued was a deadly chase through the woods as Mack fled for his life, with us finally seeing his flashforward scene play out. But John shot Mack with a bow and arrow in some very grim scenes indeed. As Mack struggled to breathe and stay alert, he begged John to let him live and promised he would stay quiet. But John said he needed to silence him, needing to cover his tracks once more. Mack told him he wasn't a murderer, with Nate's death having been an accident, leading to John chillingly commenting that this was about survival. With that he picked up a giant rock and appeared to slam Mack over the head with it, killing him. As the episode came to an end, John claimed he needed to get some petrol and left in his van that was covered in blood - which no one noticed. Not only that, but Mack's body was laying under a sheet in the back of the van confirming his fate. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
