Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues - legal case?

DrOctagon

If you'd stopped at "TRAs have little awareness" you'd have still been bang on correct! 😉👍

They have mums and grans. They know.

The TRA's have little awareness of how awesome, talented, tenacious and badass women are. Never underestimate women, it'll end up biting you on the arse!

And a few more for Hayden !!!!!!!!!!!

The combined knowledge across the spectrum on here is astonishing.

Hell we are doing the work for you!
The mental load, always the mental load

I know I keep saying it but any journo fancying a Pulitzer just needs to have one of these threads as a start point. Hell we are doing the work for you! Just fact check everything and get it printed.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!

Ahhh, I wonder if she also used Trustpilot to leave rather more glowing reviews of Ocado?

Does SH know you can use full stops as an alternative to exclamation marks?

I fear we may all be in legal trouble.

Here you can read Stephanie's publicly published account of their her epic legal battle (well, judgement in default really) in which she triumphed in the small claims court against a crappy car hire company. Who then didn't pay up.

Truly a Rumpolette of the Bailey.

There has been no requirement to appoint a company secretary since 2008, although many companies still do.

At the moment you can have a corporate entity as a director but there must also n=be at least one actual person appointed. The rules were due to change (in 2016 I think) so that directors had to be people but that bit of law got shelved and I've not heard of it being reinstated.

Companies House has been moving towards greater transparency for ownership and control of limited companies for quite a while now.

This is turning into a: Companies House, Did You Know?

On that theme, did you know that:

• Directors are supposed to declare to CH on their registration application (form IN01 for the curious) of any previous names they have been known by for business purposes for the last 20 years.

• CH do not collect gender or sex data for directors or officers. The only pieces of publicly available data is: name, nationality, occupation, month and date of birth; registered office address. 2 addresses must be provided - a registered office address (can be your home or accountant, or P.O. Box provided there's a physical address with it) and a residential address which is hidden though can be accessible by credit agencies, the police eg., though a person can apply to have this hidden.

A PP asked how come other entities were listed as officers. I haven’t looked at the detail myself but it is possible to appoint a Corporate Secretary viz Company Secretary. So it may be that. So you could appoint your accountant as your Corporate Secretary to fulfill that role.

Oh while I remember, another major issue a few years back was people setting up companies, registering them for VAT, processing a series of VAT returns that resulted in substantial repayments then closing the companies down and disappearing. HMRC got wise to that one pretty quickly though, if you submit a return for a repayment now you can expect the VATman on your doorstep to do an inspection & check before they part with any money.

BTW I am in no way implying that Ms Hayden was involved in any of these practices. I've just worked in the accounting sector for a long time and know about quite a lot of the dodges that go on.

Yes, I am going to venture that the "safety" thing is actually "don't want anyone to uncover my multiple frauds in multiple identities".

Presumably paedophiles and sex offenders would be in much more physical danger if someone uncovered their previous names.

And yet they don't get a pass at Companies House.

Feat for safety? Do these people not look at twitter with all the lovely 'ladies' waving knives in their photos or wearing fake bloodied tshirts, wielding baseball bats?

Fear for safety my arse.

It was because they'd been told that the transgender people fear for their "safety", Like.

But look at the Companies House data for a lot of the trans activists and you can see a whole lot of dodgy stuff going on.

Anyways, surely someone who is not transgender would just sue the government if the government refused to delete their data?

It isn't "equality" to only allow transgender people to hide their data when the rest of the population cannot.

And when anyone in the population can hide their pasts, then paedophiles, sex offenders and fraudsters will be the demographic most enthusiastic about it. Quite why ordinary politicians and civil servants haven't considered this, I really can't speculate.

I'm going for the latter description LikeDust.

There was a Private Members Bill backed by Nicky Morgan, Maria Miller and Jess Phillips among others that would compel Companies House to delete references to a transgender person's past on the Companies House website. The bill did not go ahead. Because a snap election was called.

What are they on?

Blimey! This thread has been very informative, in several ways.

P.I. Mumsnet is always a beautiful thing to behold.

Holy shit popchyk either Morgan, Miller and Phillips are as thick as two short ones or they are sinister and complicit.

Just on the Companies House thing.

There was a Private Members Bill backed by Nicky Morgan, Maria Miller and Jess Phillips among others that would compel Companies House to delete references to a transgender person's past on the Companies House website. The bill did not go ahead. Because a snap election was called.

Companies Documentation (Transgender Persons) Bill 2016-17

Because that would never be used to hide a dodgy criminal past, oh no.

Strange isn't it how a small organisation such as Fair Play for Women published details of their accounts yesterday without any prompting or legal requirement to do so and yet our learned friend here is reluctant to allow a company to be in existence long enough to be legally compelled to file accounts - which one is the more open and transparent?

Lozza - not quite sure what you mean by that comment but as far as I'm aware Stephanie Hayden has the paperwork to be referred to as "she". Better score at scrabble too.