Ann Sinnott is asking for clarity on guidance for the Equality Act

It seems that changing things because you don't like the wording for ideological reasons is being done on a national scale.

From Ann Sinnott's account on the Crowd justice site:

"On 17 February 2020, AEA wrote to both EHRC and GEO and provided a list of unlawful guidance identified by AEA. Protracted correspondence with both organisations then followed.

GEO maintains that its guidance is correct.

On 23 March 2020, EHRC - dismissing the unlawful guidance as mere “inconsistencies” - acknowledged that the guidance needed to be amended but was vague as to when that would take place.

Finally, on 14 August 2020, EHRC provided AEA with a list of recently amended guidance. Only six documents have actually been amended, the rest have just been made unavailable – links lead to ‘Access Denied’ or ‘Page Not Found’.

But whether amended or unavailable, the guidance documents can still be accessed via the websites of other organisations, so misinformation continues to be spread.

EHRC have made these changes quietly, without announcement and without any attempt to inform affected organisations. That is unacceptable."

What's the code?

I believe in daylight.

yourhairiswinterfire exactly.. The arrogance is unbelievable

Perfectly highlighting why this is so important. (hopefully pic attatches).

They've basically decided that the EA is 'outdated', so they'll take it upon themselves to change the words to mean what they want them to mean. I can't quite believe the arrogance.

Amazing how switching one word (using 'identity' instead of 'reassignment') changes everything, isn't it?

Can someone please post or PM a link, I can't find it? Thanks

Over 10k now - just added my widow's mite

it's nearly at halfway!! Amazing!! I couldn't find my lovely pink gardening gloves so I pulled out some old green bamboo ones (that fit beautifully and last for ages) and got some gardening done. It is very encouraging at this point that it hasn't been taken down and this is such an important action.
highame - I have a strong feeling you are on the right lines

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings yes exactly what you said. Whichever way this goes, we’ll get some clarity and then know what to focus on next. You are spot on too about how the TRAs either deliberately or through a complete lack of intellectual discipline (which I think is generally a woke/post modern thing) have zero respect for clarity. Everything is just so fluid, so it can mean whatever the most shouty want it to mean at any given point (just realised there is something very infantile in that: everything is fluid so can flit between the shiniest prettiest meaning of the moment and then flit to another when that gets boring. Philosophy by Instagram)

I had a dig. Thanks for the heads up!

Over halfway already

I was thinking that highame.

Fair Cop have tweeted that they contacted EHRC themselves in February, raising concerns about the Police and their Public Sector Equality Duty, and were ignored.

FC said "we have a better understanding now as to why we didn't even get an acknowledgement of our concerns. They obviously had a lot on their plate!"

So seems they were unaware this was going on. *takes off tinfoil hat.

Yes, what we need to clarity and to know where things stand. Whether the case will go in our favour or not, we need to understand how the law is intended to work, and then we can either put pressure for it to be enforced properly or challenge it legally so it is changed to protect women's rights.

Respect to Ann for taking this on.

I wonder if she was the other cowboy who rode into town mentioned by faircop. I have another attack of Conspiracyitus

DialSquare Ann, I think, has some big backers, I can't be sure, but I am surmising. A lot of people want this clarity, not just us and it has wider repercussions.

These things are never certain but she has done her work.

Either way, the case will hopefully bring more widespread attention.

Even if these cases don't go in our favour, at least we will have clarity and know how to best proceed. If it turns out that the law is on our side, then our next step is to enforce the law. If it turns out that the law is not on our side, then our next step is to change the law. Either way we start to get some parameters on this nonsense. The TRA goal is to make every sooo complicated that words can't possible be defined, ideas can't possibly be contained within catagories etc, so nothing can be meaningfully enforced by law. We need to get everything spelled out in black and white. Once we get some definitional boundaries around things, start fencing in who is and is not included by the terms "trans", "woman" etc, then we can start the work of closing those catagories in until they just include actual literal women.

Thanks highame. That's what I'm hoping. It seemed clear cut to me but you never know. I'm not in the same league intelligence wise as some on here so wondered if I was missing something (apart from brain cells!)

A change of thread title might be useful. I had no idea who Ann Sinnott was and only looked at thread because it was at the top of the page.

The TRA's may be considering their friends in high places but that would mean our legal system is corrupt and I am sure that isn't the case (I can't be deleted for stating the obvious, can I .

So far as I can tell, this is pretty straight forward. There's masses of evidence

I've seen there a few TRA's encouraging this in the belief that the end result will be in their favour. Maybe they are right? Or is it their delusions are so deep set? It needs clarification either way.

@MilleniumHallsWalledGarden it’s great to see her almost half way already, thank you so much for highlighting. But do you think it might be good to repost about this using a subject thread that doesn’t rely on readers knowing who Ann is? Just thinking there are many others on here who would dig in but might have missed this thread