City of London Consultation Results - they can't get away with this

Well, yes! My guess is it is the middle aged transvestites that are keenest for access to the women only pool. It really isn't about safety or dignity at all. Just gives me the creeps that this is all going on in broad daylight and being nodded through. It really is like the collective, wilful ignorance of Jimmy Saville all over again - except on a far larger and more profound scale.

This article offers considerable insight.
Nicky Mayhew, co-chair of the Kenwood Ladies' Pond Association & transrights acivist Jane Fae interviewed:
www.pri.org/stories/2018-09-25/transgender-women-are-women-organizers-say-after-controversy-over-women-only-pond

Happy to donate. I have set aside a budget for charity donations, which is currently being spread across an number of groups/people speaking out constructively. You can have several months worth. This needs to be pushed back.

When a mixed option exists, its just ridiculous to keep puching to use the areas of the opposite sex

Well, yes! My guess is it is the middle aged transvestites that are keenest for access to the women only pool. It really isn't about safety or dignity at all. Just gives me the creeps that this is all going on in broad daylight and being nodded through. It really is like the collective, wilful ignorance of Jimmy Saville all over again - except on a far larger and more profound scale.

Dodgy as hell, disregarding 50% of the respondants. I would actually bet money on the fact that those rejected were all against, so the 'real' results were 75|% against, 25% for, which would tally with how the other polls and that on this topic tend to go also.

If they are adopting self-ID, they best tell the men. They were none too happy with women invading their pond. I really don;t understand the issue with the ponds as surely, surely, trans people can user the mixed pool if not the one for their sex. When a mixed option exists, its just ridiculous to keep puching to use the areas of the opposite sex..

Agree it was rigged as fuck in the quantitative sections. I spent a lot of time on the response to this as did many others because it was so hard to make normal points due to the absolute bias and rigging of the answer options.

Does being a respondent give us any extra rights to enquire of them what on earth is going on here?

This is surely ripe for judicial review. I would stick cash into that. It's just outrageous.

I completed the consultation - no doubt my responses were binned for wrong think.

Well that'll teach me to preview before posting.

I meant to write that I was more than willing to contribute towards funding a legal challenge, because the current equality laws needs to be clarified once and for all.

7 City of London police officers removed a small group of lesbians and other women from the Accenture LGBT+ event

apologies, my link previously was incorrect.
Full thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3539529-Lesbians-removed-from-Accenture-inclusive-trans-event-by-7-police-officers

So is it that they are so cocksure that we'll be ignored, that they decided to do it anyway and just front it out?

Seems that way doesn't it?

CoL will have known that we were all going to be incandescent at them disregarding half the responses.

So is it that they are so cocksure that we'll be ignored, that they decided to do it anyway and just front it out?

Buzz yes you are right. But a foi or/and judicial review would at least reveal it.

Have written to my MP about this, is just SO WRONG. London is very multi cultural and this is deliberately excluding women of certain faiths from the womens pool....FFS there is already a mixed sex one.

So basically some unidentifiable international 'community' were given a say in whether or not women in London deserve privacy, so that non-binary Edward can go to the Ladies' Pond when they fancies it?

Those who do not use twitter or follow TRAs such as Edward Lord would be considerably less likely to know the consultation was happening.
Many people who use the services provided by City of London Corporation and so directly impacted would have been disinfranchised.

Online surveys such as this are not fit for purpose.

It was widely promoted on trans-twitter.
Many twitterTRAs fromoutside the UK were commenting that they were completing it at the time it was running.

So basically some unidentifiable international 'community' were given a say in whether or not women in London deserve privacy, so that non-binary Edward can go to the Ladies' Pond when they fancies it?

You ladies are amazing, thank you so much for being so wonderful
+1. I'm just fuming.

Yeah, but even if they do have a policy, it's done. Probably an "accident by an intern no longer with them"

Remember how some MPs expenses got accidentally shredded before the big reveal?

All the handwringing in the world didn't unshred them, so that was that.

Info commissioner was toothless before gdpr and not really tested since.

The corporation does have a retention policy/schedule. It's mentioned in their data protection policy. But it doesn't seem to be online.

An insultation is exactly what this is. Great word!

Buzz I was thinking that too. But then I thought the corporation should have a retention policy/schedule for personal data that they collect. I'm not an expert but I'd be surprised if you are allowed to do a public consultation then immediately destroy some records. Might not have stopped them though.

The research being showcased on this thread is impressive.!!

I'm incandescent about this. Heading for Twitter to make sure that journalists are aware of what's happened here. Nonsultation is a very good word for it. Insultation would be another.

If anyone thinks the dissenting responses haven't already been permanently deleted, they're fooling themselves.

FOI requests won't change that, if there is nothing to show anymore.

Fucking bullshit.

Wish I was closer, would love to have a swim in the men’s pond and breastfeed my baby with my man breasts.

From the day the 'consultation' was launched, there was never a doubt about the outcome.

It's illustrative of the TRA agenda though. As well as the male pond, there was already a mixed one. The TRAs didn't care, they just wanted to infiltrate the female pond.

I was cheesed off enough at their wretched and sneaky questionnaire, which it took me a long time to complete but now I know they tossed it aside, I am steaming. Lead me to the crowd funder.

You ladies are amazing, thank you so much for being so wonderful 😊

From the 'Equality Analysis', under the heading of 'Sex'.

Some males and females who use single-sex facilities have concerns about and/or are uncomfortable with trans access to those facilities (as illustrated by some of the responses to the City Corporation’s GI Survey).

So they noticed this, before they removed those responses as 'invalid'.

What is the proposal’s impact on the equalities aims?

Sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
The Act also has a strong inclusive presumption for trans people with respect to single sex services and facilities.

Saying it once more in the hope it comes true.

Under 'Religion or Belief'

The GI Policy may challenge beliefs about single sex services and facilities in some religious communities. The GI Policy could therefore have a challenging impact on the use of services and facilities by members of those communities.

I wonder how they're going to sort that one out.