The most plausible explanation is not that this obscure article has been used to train AI, but that a big chunk of my other writing has been - a million words in 60 scraped pieces, including 14 of 23 books. So my writing style has been judged by its similarity to my later work.

I'd love to think that someone out there had read and liked it, but sadly I've no reason to believe that: it has no (zero) citations on Scholar. I've done a little better since ...

I tested something I'd written myself: my first academic article, published 45 years ago. It came in at 77% AI-generated.

Taking both of these points together you can conclude: 1. Excluding men from a women’s facility is less favourable treatment, even if they have access to a men’s facility. 2. If that exclusion is because of sex, that is unlawful unless there is an applicable exception. 3. On a basic comparator test this is clearly direct sex discrimination: if the man was female he would have been included. 4. Since you can only rely on the Schedule 3 exceptions if you’re operating a service based on biological sex, anything other than that is not covered. Therefore a service based on anything other than biological sex which excludes men from a women’s service (and vice versa) necessarily engages in unlawful sex discrimination without an applicable exception.

Poverty is really about social relationships; but even if one insists it's all about low income, this is ill-informed. Prices are relative - they reflect demand, and so the ability of *other people* to pay. Therefore the value of income is also relative. policy.bristoluniversitypres…

"Countries that have cut back on certain types of #Benefits have nevertheless found themselves constrained to leave some forms of income support in place...It’s not an inevitable truth, but it’s something that can be charted and seen." @PSpicker @geomill transformingsociety.co.uk/20…

Listen to @geomill and @PSpicker talk about some of the historical roots, moral foundations, and practical workings of different #Welfare systems. #WelfareState transformingsociety.co.uk/20…

New in the ‘What Is It For?’ series, ‘What Is the Welfare State For?’ discusses the institutions and methods that characterise #WelfareStates around the world. @PSpicker ow.ly/zC2q50W4VN9

My new book has shipped: bristoluniversitypress.co.uk… . "A brilliant critical contribution and powerful overview about how we got here and what is at stake" (Camilo Perez-Bustillo) "Concise and superbly written" (Daniel Béland)

After 25 years and more than eight million views, I am closing down my educational website, 'An Introduction to Social Policy'. A legacy copy, and my blog, will still be available at observant-paulspicker.wordpr… Other posts will be at @paulspicker.bsky.social

It doesn't seem to matter how many warnings are posted, some kids playing in the cemetery will try to bring dead ideas back to life. Zero-based budgeting implicitly favours 'core' (in-house) spending over 'peripheral'. Voluntary organisations beware.

Hardly new, people. Richard Titmuss wrote about this 60 years ago and I've been on it for 20.

The OBR's new report obr.uk/frs/fiscal-risks-and-… offers projections over 50 years, implying disastrous public finances. 50 years? This is what led the Times in 1894 to write that "in 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.” blog.spicker.uk/hold-the-hor…

The 2 final candidates for the Conservative leadership must pay £150,000 to participate. This will prove they can attract donors - and that's just what wrong with it. The winning candidate will be beholden to donors - as intended. theguardian.com/politics/art…

Best defence of Winter Fuel Payment.

Pensions aren't income-related.  All pensions go to richer pensioners as well as poorer ones.  The cut in Winter Fuel Payment is nothing more, and nothing less, than a cut in pensions. wp.me/p6x0MC-257

Labour first suggested dumping the Winter Fuel Payment in 2013, and they're back to that again. My comment from 2013: it's a mechanism to get money to people simply and directly. Governments should think twice before they throw away their best tools. blog.spicker.uk/the-winter-f…

This may look like an easy win for the new government, but it's ill-advised. Bear this in mind: with every tweak, adjustment, condition and exclusion, the system becomes that little bit more complicated, more vulnerable to error and unfairness, and more difficult to manage.