Adam Nicolson: ‘Our small home is made of oak trees from 1590'
Nobody would have chosen it except us. A friend said:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘I was sunbathing topless when I heard a male voice': The trans row over women-only swimming
Janice Williams was first taken to the Kenwood Ladies' Pond on Hampstead Heath in the 1990s by a group of single mothers from a community project. 'Many were survivors of domestic violence, prostitution, trafficking etc and, for these women particularly, the single-sex status of the pond meant that it was not just a sanctuary, it was the only sanctuary, a place of freedom, healing and community,' says Janice, 69, a former training consultant who lives near the ponds in North London. 'We could picnic on the meadow, remove bra tops and – for the few who had learnt to swim – dip in the water while another mum watched our kids. There were women from all different backgrounds – Muslim, Jewish, Afro-Caribbean – it was pure and beautiful to be immersed in nature.' Today, the sign on the iron gate at the pond – the only natural women-only bathing pond in Europe – still reads: 'Women Only. Men not allowed beyond this point'. And for almost a century, since it opened in 1925, this rule was respected by the large majority of visitors. But recently, another sign appeared which reads: 'Those who identify as women are welcome to swim at the Kenwood Ladies' Bathing Pond.' The Ladies Pond is open to biological women and trans women with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010. The City of London Corporation is preparing a public consultation on the future admissions policy at the Ladies' Pond.' It seems that The City of London Corporation – the multi-billion-pound local authority that manages the site, and governs the Square Mile – is doubling down on its 2018 decision to update its 'Women Only' policy to include trans women (men who self-identify as women). When that update became public, protests ensued. One grassroots women's group took to wearing fake moustaches and went to the nearby men-only pond to raise awareness of the hypocrisy of the policy (they were thrown out). But in April, when the Supreme Court ruled that 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 meant biological sex and that even men with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) could be excluded from women-only services, the protesters hoped their fight was over. They were wrong. The City of London Corporation says it is 'currently reviewing its access policies'. It means that for now at least, it will still allow men who identify as women to swim at the women's pond. Campaign group Sex Matters is planning to make a £50,000 legal claim over the Corporation's failure to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. 'The Corporation has said this is not a single-sex service because it already lets trans women in,' says Maya Forstater, executive director of Sex Matters. 'They're basically saying that although the Supreme Court defined what 'man' and 'woman' means in the Equality Act, the words 'man' and 'woman' mean something completely different on their sign and therefore they don't need to use the Equality Act rules at all – which is extraordinary. 'We suspect that's what all other councils who are saying 'it is complex' are thinking as well. They're all biding their time while sticking 'to the pack' because they don't want to be sued. 'We've heard a lot from women who say they don't swim in the pond any more. They're self-excluding or changing their behaviour, such as going first thing in the morning when they believe fewer 'trans women' go because they feel it's safer. 'There are other women who say they have had bad experiences when trans women are there – one told us of an elderly transsexual asking young girls to do his bikini up for him and whether he could go naked into the female showers.' Forstater, who has campaigned for clarity on sex in law and policy since winning her own discrimination case in 2021, says that the law is clear and that the City of London is breaching the Equality Act 2010. 'We feel we have a clear-cut case,' she says. 'The ponds are already using sex discrimination because a mother can't take her five-year-old son to the Women's Pond yet a man claiming to be a woman is being allowed access. 'The City of London is a public body providing a public service and so we are bringing this as a public law case to show that here is an organisation breaching sex-based rules. It's irrational and we think it puts women at risk of harm. 'The ponds are an iconic space and the only outdoor women-only amenity in the country. But there's also a male pond and a mixed pond so there's no sense that anyone is not allowed to swim and between those three options, everyone is included.' In a statement, a spokesman for the City of London Corporation said: 'In line with other service providers, we are reviewing our access policies, including those at Hampstead Heath's Bathing Ponds. 'In doing so, we must consider the impact of current and potential future arrangements on all visitors, while ensuring we meet our legal duties and provide appropriate access. 'This summer we will engage with our service users and other stakeholders to ensure we understand their needs and can take properly informed decisions. 'In considering the way forward, we have taken, and will continue to take, specialist legal advice. The current arrangements remain in place during the review. 'Our priority is to provide a safe and respectful environment for everyone.' Hairy bodies in bikinis The reaction to the news that biological males are still allowed in the Ladies' Pond is mixed. One woman who asked not to be named says she has felt as though her privacy has been breached since the rules changed. 'I was sunbathing as usual, topless,' she says. 'I suddenly heard this male voice next to me and he said: 'Do you know what time the pond closes?' Even though I consider myself a broad-minded person, it really freaked me out because I heard a male voice. The idea that someone was there when I was not being modest or protected by any clothing felt wrong. Even though I thought I was a liberated person, I realised I'm not.' The whole experience made her 'very uncomfortable' she admits. Coming out of the pond, another woman wearing a linen shirt and carrying a swimming bag over her arms says that she once saw two men using the pond which made her 'despair'. 'At the time I was very distressed because I thought: 'Oh that's the end of women-only spaces then,' she reflects. The guys I saw were very much a provocation. They had big hairy bodies and were wearing bikinis. It was very aggressive, very much an attack. I felt it was sad… I felt angry. 'The beauty of women-only spaces is that you don't have to think about what your body looks like in a costume or whether you want to take your top off when you sunbathe,' she says. 'There's a lovely freedom there and I think it's instantly contaminated, even if you're liberal-minded about the trans issue.' But not all bathers today are concerned. Alba Hernandez, 28, a theatre usher from north-west London is more accepting. 'I feel very safe and I don't think I would feel threatened,' she says. 'If anything happened that would endanger somebody, the pond is a very strong community and it would be stopped very quickly.' Barbara Massey, 76, another regular, holds a similar view. 'There was one person who was a man and became a woman, she was always coming here,' she says. 'But she sat with us up on that bench and everyone accepted her as a woman. As long as they don't feel you up or chat you up. 'But if it's a guy who's sneaking in here, saying: 'I identify as a woman' and he's actually eyeing women up, we wouldn't like that.' Yet other women point out that erasing women-only spaces excludes certain religions. 'It's very important for some people to have space for women-only,' says 75-year-old Daphne Grey. 'Certain religions would not be allowed to swim at all if they had to go mixed, so I think it's important. They've got mixed ponds and men-only ponds, so why not women-only?' Protesters against the recent policy claim that one of the main figures driving the charge to allow trans-identifying men into the ponds is Edward Lord, an elected member of the City of London Corporation since 2001. Lord identifies as non-binary and goes by they/them pronouns. It was Lord who, in 2018, oversaw a consultation by the City of London Corporation about its trans policy, including in relation to women's and men's ponds and changing rooms on Hampstead Heath. Promoted mostly on his Twitter account, Lord launched the consultation, saying: 'It shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't be a debate. Trans women are women, trans men are men.' Yet when Forstater polled her Twitter followers in 2019 to see how many people said they had been blocked by Lord in the past – and therefore would have been less likely to see the survey he was promoting – it appeared that 83 per cent of the 1,821 blocked were women. However, some women on the online forum Mumnset did see the survey and sensed problems straight away. 'No mention of sex, no mention of impact on any stakeholders, all leading questions, and horrible clear intention to filter,' wrote one. The survey found that 60 per cent of respondents appeared to support the inclusion of trans-identifying men in the ponds. Yet critics argued that it was 'a sham'. Alice Sullivan, professor of sociology at University College London's Social Research Institute and author of a recent independent review assessing how sex and gender identity are recorded in public data, statistics, and research commented at the time. She said the consultation had been handled in an 'oddly discreet way'. Today, her views are even more robust. 'This is a strong contender for the worst questionnaire I have ever seen,' she says. 'Instead of asking users of local services concrete questions about whether males should be allowed into women's spaces, the City of London asked pure gobbledygook questions such as: 'Do you agree or disagree that: 1/ a person may come to feel that their gender is different from that assigned to them at birth. 2/ A person who consistently identifies in a gender which is different to the one they were assigned at birth should be accepted by society in their stated gender identity etc. 'To add insult to injury, there were 39,650 responses, but half of these responses were deemed invalid, with analysis only carried out on the remaining 21,191 cases. The exercise was a sham from start to finish.' However, the trans-inclusive policy was adopted, leading to women's rights campaigners to lead several protests. 'The moment a man was allowed in, [the atmosphere at the women-only pond] changed at a stroke in a short-sighted move designed to bolster the already overinflated ego of Edward Lord,' says Janice Williams. 'I later joined the committee of the Kenwood Ladies Pond Association (KLPA) hoping to explain all this to them but to no avail. They refused to even discuss it. I proposed the AGM motion to return the pond to women-only but a lot of young students appeared to have been drafted in at the last moment to vote against it and the meeting was abandoned in chaos because speakers in favour were refused a hearing. This was pre-Supreme Court clarification.' A spokesman for the City of London Corporation said: 'Edward Lord has had no direct involvement in shaping the City Corporation's response to the Supreme Court decision. Our position is guided solely by our legal obligations under the Equality Act and our interpretation of the Court's judgment.' Supporters of the trans-inclusive policy cite the positive vote to include trans women from members of the KLPA as a reason why Sex Matters should drop any case. But Sex Matters dismiss this. 'You can't vote to discriminate and obviously if you've caused lots of women to self-exclude and then you take a vote amongst those who didn't self-exclude, the answer will be: 'We think it's fine,'' says Forstater. 'But it's not up to them to vote, it's up to the City of London to provide a service that is lawful. 'People still have freedom of association to vote to live their life in a particular way and if there is a group of women who want to swim with trans women then they are free to do that. 'But they need to do that in the mixed pond. What they can't do is vote that a public service that is spending public money and is required to comply with the Equality Act doesn't do that.' Venice Allan is another supporter of Sex Matters' legal action and will be a witness for their case. She has taken part in several protests since 2018 to keep the pond women-only. 'In a women-only pond you're free to be semi-naked in the pool and naked in the shower, but there's a joy and physical peace to being there because there are no men or boys splashing around,' says Allan, 50. 'I have two sons myself and there's nothing wrong with that kind of swimming but to have a peaceful space like this was wonderful.' Venice says she has encountered men claiming to be women swimming in the pond on at least two occasions. 'There were two men who were clearly 'transitioning' because they had little 'moobs' and several years later there was a man with a woman who was on some kind of hormonal treatment. They were sitting there topless just watching the women. 'Some elderly lesbians I was with actually complained to the lifeguard and at the time I was quite timid and felt: 'Was this the right thing to do?' 'But now I feel completely differently. The men who go now, particularly after all the publicity with the Supreme Court judgment, are deliberately violating our boundaries. When one man comes into a space with lots of women the atmosphere completely changes. 'I was absolutely thrilled when Sex Matters said they were going to take this action. There are three ponds where these men could swim – it's literally the most progressive, inclusive and welcoming space in London – and there is no reason on Earth as to why these men can't use the mixed pond. For me it's the perfect court case.'
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Dear Richard Madeley: I've just found out my husband had an affair
Dear Richard, My husband and I have been married for over 40 years. Recently, I discovered quite by chance that he had an affair about 14 years ago with a woman 25 years his junior. They went their separate ways and I don't know of any other times he's strayed. Needless to say, I was utterly flabbergasted as I had absolutely no idea anything was going on at all. Since I discovered the affair, I've tried extremely hard to act normally around him but I'm now suffering from low self-esteem, and feeling insecure, anxious and vulnerable. It's undermined what I thought was a basically good relationship. I am in two minds as to whether to raise this with him – I also don't want to talk to our (grown-up) children about it. Part of me thinks these things happen and he has never been inattentive or cold towards me, so I shouldn't rock the boat or risk other things coming to light – I certainly don't feel 'vindictive' towards him, just hurt and confused. Should I bring the subject up? — L, via email Dear L, Well, well. Quite a conundrum for a Saturday morning. Firstly, my congratulations on keeping such a cool head. You would have been fully justified in confronting your husband the moment you discovered his infidelity – and I'm sure many of my readers, finding themselves in a similar position, would have done exactly that. But you have bided your time. You have paused to reflect. Interestingly (indeed paradoxically) it is you now who holds a secret – your husband's secret – and he who is living in blissful ignorance. He doesn't know what you know. That puts you in a position of power, L. The question, of course, is how and whether to use it – and to what end. And there I'm afraid I must reflect your request for advice about what to do next directly back at you. Not because I'm timid or dodging the question, or at a loss for an answer, but because you and only you, L, can possibly know what will work for you. The reasons for what he did present an almost infinite list of possibilities. Some explanations are somewhat kinder than others. Was he chasing some notion of lost youth? Was he insecure and in need of validation? Did he simply fall into temptation, come to regret it, and end the affair? Or is he – as you yourself speculate – a serial cheat? Is he a master of the double life? Is he anything but the man you have, for 40 years, taken him to be? You wouldn't be the first to discover, late in the day, that their partner is a Jekyll and Hyde. Judging by the tone and content of your letter, with its description of a warm and attentive partner, I doubt the latter, darker theories – although you never know. The problem is that if and when you confront him with his affair, he may simply lie about it and the reasons for it and, frankly, you'll be no further forward than you are now. The best advice I can offer is that you ask yourself a much simpler question. Can you live with this knowledge if you keep it to yourself, indefinitely? Will it eat away at you? Or would you find at least some catharsis in confrontation, even if telling your husband what you know doesn't necessarily bring you any closer to understanding or forgiving his behaviour? Only you can answer that, L. I'm so sorry that you should have to wrestle with such a difficult, painful question at this stage in your life and marriage. Of course, you just cut through all of it and divorce the old so-and-so. Kick him out. Have you considered that? Just a thought.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Sticky prune, pear and ginger cakes with ginger caramel
A variation of my mum's beloved sticky date pudding, these little cakes are all warming spice and soft, cooked fruit. As they're made with wholemeal flour, sticky prunes and pear, I like to kid myself that these are, in fact, healthy muffins. But then I drown them in ginger caramel and a puddle of cream, and that illusion is shattered! On a cold evening these really are heavenly, and I wouldn't even blame you if the leftovers masqueraded as breakfast the next day. The prunes are lovely in this – I actually prefer them to dates. If you're not convinced, just think of them as dried plums. I have often gifted a box of these, along with an accompanying jar of caramel sauce, and they are always well received. Sign up for the fun stuff with our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning Makes 6 100g unsalted butter, cubed, plus extra to grease185 ml full cream (whole) milk 125g caster sugar 120g pitted prunes, halved1 tsp fresh ginger, peeled and finely diced1/4 tsp bicarbonate of soda 2 eggs, lightly beaten1 tsp vanilla bean paste 2 small pears, ripe but firm150g wholemeal flour, plus extra to dust tins3/4 tsp baking powder 3/4 tsp ground ginger 1/8 tsp fine sea salt Ginger caramel sauce100g unsalted butter, cubed165g light brown sugar 200ml single cream, plus extra to serve (optional)1 tsp fresh ginger, peeled and finely diced1/2 tsp flaky sea salt Preheat the oven to 160C fan-forced and grease a large muffin tin (with six 180ml capacity holes) well with softened butter. Line the bases of the holes with circles of baking paper, then dust with a little wholemeal flour, tapping out any excess. Put the butter, milk, sugar, prunes and fresh ginger in a medium saucepan. Place over medium heat, stirring occasionally, until the butter has melted and the sugar has dissolved. Remove from the heat, stir in the bicarb soda and allow the mixture to cool to room temperature. When the mixture has cooled, stir in the eggs and vanilla. Peel and quarter the pears, removing the cores. Cut the quarters into 1–2cm pieces and set aside. Place the flour, baking powder, ground ginger and fine sea salt in a large mixing bowl and whisk together. Make a well in the centre and pour in the cooled prune mixture, along with the pear pieces, stirring gently until just combined. Sign up to Saved for Later Catch up on the fun stuff with Guardian Australia's culture and lifestyle rundown of pop culture, trends and tips after newsletter promotion Divide the batter evenly between the prepared muffin cups. Bake in the preheated oven for 20–25 minutes or until the cakes are golden brown and risen, and just a few damp crumbs cling to a skewer when tested. Allow the cakes to cool a little in their tins while you make the ginger caramel sauce. Add the butter, sugar, cream and ginger to a medium saucepan. Place over medium heat and stir until the butter has melted and the sugar has dissolved. Turn the heat down and let the caramel bubble for 3–5 minutes, stirring occasionally until slightly thickened, and watching carefully that the caramel doesn't bubble over. Remove from the heat and stir in the flaky sea salt. Carefully turn the warm cakes out of their tins, running a knife around the edges to loosen if necessary. Serve the cakes warm, topped with warm ginger caramel sauce and a puddle of pure (single) cream, if you like. I like to use a skewer to poke holes in the top of the cakes to allow the caramel sauce to really soak in. Any leftover cakes and caramel sauce will keep well in an airtight container in the fridge for 2–3 days – just heat gently before serving. This is an edited extract from Handfuls of Sunshine, written and photographed by Tilly Pamment (Murdoch Books: $39.99, out now)
