Judicial review of City of London's decision

reclaimec1.wordpress.com/2018/06/14/edward-lord-the-city-of-london-and-freemasonry/

The apparently non-binary Edward Lord is a Freemason, which might go some way to explaining why there's not been much scrutiny as to his ulterior motives.

That's a fair point but one possible benefit is for this matter to be raised and discussed in that community. Even if the result is "well, there's a conflict between our religious beliefs and what trans people want so I guess we have to suppress our beliefs" that will cause not a few people in the community to start asking questions, at least of themselves. The more that various conflicts are identified and the relevant people are told "the interests of trans people must always prevail", the better. Sunlight and transparency will help win the day for gender critical people.

This is great. But Hampstead’s Jewish population generally tends to be quite left leaning. The Leader of Reform Judaism has a non- binary dd and speaks out in the media on pro-trans issues. So this might just be an issue that the Orthodox community can rally around.

There was a recent case reported in the Jewish Chronicle about an Orthodox Rabbi allowing a transman take part in the Male section of a synagogue service due “a not insignificant percentage of people challenged by gender dysphoria commit suicide. And where there was a risk of suicide, then gender reassignment surgery and wearing clothes of the opposite sex become not necessarily permitted, but superseded by the obligation to preserve life.”

Weird how an actual third space just isn't enough.

Wonderful pictures FreeFreesia

I meant to say that I agree women in general should fight this, not just let the religious objectors get on with it because it's easier.

I'm not blocked on Twitter by EL, but I never post, and have lots of privacy settings in force. I do a huge amount of likening of GC posts though.

I'm blocked by Lord but the screenshot halfway down this thread will be useful as Lord says your reply will only count if your first answers pass:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3400894-city-of-london-corporation-gender-survey-results?pg=1#prettyPhoto/1/

Just thought I'd share this. Beautiful www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/photography-2/braving-the-cold-with-hampsteads-women-swimmers/

Crowdjustice.com? My former nspcc monthly donation is now reserved for women-centred campaigns...

Solidarity with those Jewish women. I hope they strengthen their case by encouraging other religious groups to join them.

It looks like the penny is beginning to drop with Lord that using twitter as part of a way of notifying about a consultation while having an extensive block list is a good way to undermine the consultation. Not clever. But he still has a fair amount of power and believes he has enough of it to disregard due process, and fair process for that matter.

I think we need another invasion of the men’s pond...

Edward Lord watches mumsnet, judging by his latest tweet

Excuse typos there

gender neutral options are never going to be enough

Just thinking that in all the reports that I’ve read about this decision, it has all been about the Womens’ Pond. Does the men’s pond have to admit women in the same way or has that been allowed to stay men only? Because if it doesn’t - then why? And if it has then why hasn’t it been mentioned? I’m guessing that if ManFriday was anything to go by it would mean that there would be a load of men complaining too...

The real eye-opener is that men, even educated and cosmopolitan men who run the City, don't care about women. Not even enough to ask them what they thought about giving up their spaces.

To them some TRA sitting in Florida has views that are more valid than a conservative Jewish long-term Hampstead resident.

How did that happen, or was it always like that and we did not notice.

It’s kind of disgusting that we have to have a legal case for women not to be forced to validate men by having them next to us when we are changing, swimming whatever. This situation only shows that the ‘gender neutral’/mixed swimming option is never too to be enough. Men want into the women’s. This is just one canary in a very deep coalmine.

Dear Jewish sisters we atheists are with you

And why isn't the Equality Act 2010 being applied and enforced?

They're misinterpreting the Equality Act, so they're telling people that they're applying it, when in fact they're not.

10. The Equality Act requires that people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are not discriminated against in the provision of single-sex services and are able to access services aligning with their gender identity.

democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s113890/2019.04%20Gender%20Identity%20Policy.pdf

Stonewall and other organisations have helped with this, by convincing many organisations and government bodies that having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment means that you should be treated the same as the opposite sex. This is not what the EA2010 actually says. All it says is that you shouldn't be discriminated against or excluded from all services. A transwoman should not be treated any differently from any other man - i.e., someone who is the same sex. Transwomen should only be treated the same as women when they have a gender recognition certificate, and even then there are exceptions in some circumstances.

The City of London Corporation and many other bodies are acting as though gender self-ID is already law.

There are three ponds: A women's pond; a men's pond; and a mixed pond.

But that is not good enough for some men. They have to force themselves into the women's space too.

What is wrong with these men? And why isn't the Equality Act 2010 being applied and enforced?

As I said in my earlier post, The judicial review should be about the way in which the consultation was carried out and the way the decision was made, rather than the decision itself. If the process was flawed then any decision made is unlawful.

The key to this is in the way the consultation was carried out. The Gunning Principles set out what should have been done - and in this case, was not done. The challenge shouldn't be about the outcome, but about the process. A decision made via an unlawful process is an unlawful decision. IANAL, but from my reading of the Gunning Principles, this is how the judicial review process works.