UK Census guidance on how to answer sex question must be rewritten, High Court rules

Does this ruling mean I dont need to submit paper copy + letter, or is there still something to be gained by doing so?

I think there still is.

Does this ruling mean I dont need to submit paper copy + letter, or is there still something to be gained by doing so?

We may need to buckle up for a bumpy ride depending on an appeal and the scheduling of the JR so it's hard to call the correct course of action as yet.

Just so happened that me paper copy finally arrived today. I haven't printed a version of the Sex in the Census letter yet.

Does this ruling mean I dont need to submit paper copy + letter, or is there still something to be gained by doing so?

However, there is no way I am going to put Male down as the sex answer.

It's not a value judgement. It's your sex.

But at least once you get a GRC, you will count towards the trans population in terms of services and healthcare.

The government knows how many and who have GRC’s, so it’s the best way for them to monitor who is trans etc.

Like I said, I have all the requirements to get a GRC rather than the self ID.

I am against self ID.

However, there is no way I am going to put Male down as the sex answer.

That's my view as someone who would be allowed under this ruling to put down female as sex if I had a GRC which I have all the paperwork for.

So now - I have to get a GRC, which is a document I will never have to use, never have to show anyone.

Strictly speaking, the judge hasn't definitely ruled. He has given permission for the judicial review to go ahead, and directed the form be changed in the interim- he granted interim relief. The full hearing will be next week probably.

So what is it exactly you want from posting on this thread gottoget ? You like boasting that you will be breaking the law? Or you want us to validate your specialness ? Not in the spirit I would say

Knowingly putting false information on your census form is subject to a fine of up to £1,000

I know
How would they know?

Well - got my diagnosis 10 years ago. Had my surgery 5 years ago.
I don't have a GRC. Never needed one.
There is no way that I am going to put male down in the Census.

I am going to get a GRC because I can see the way the wind is blowing.
I don't see Boris making it any easier to get a GRC. Not that it's hard.

But no one will ever ask to see my GRC. It's a confidential document.
My passport says Female. As does my driving license. All my official documents.

I've had to start digging out evidence of my diagnosis, evidence of surgery.

And a huge thank you to everybody who contributed to the crowdfunder that facilitated this action.

Brilliant result! Thank you FPFW!

I'm so glad that between the House of Lords and the courts, it's starting to feel like the grown ups have come back in the room. That shouldn't need to be the case, but clearly our elected representatives and taxpayer-funded public bodies have got far too giddy on the kool aid and can't manage without supervision.

We need to know who is allowing / encouraging this attempt by stealth to erase the reality of women as a sex class.

Who, and why??
A few questions about how they have got so much power in such a short time would be valid too. Gays and lesbians had to campaign for a century to come anywhere near success. Women's fight, of course, has never stopped.

Bet he is clearing his head with a glass or two of chateau Thames embankment.
The Guardian news report was v straight too: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

I can’t find it now, but I was reading somewhere about the fact that when the ONS was moved from London to Newport 10 years ago, 90% of the staff declined to move with it. The article was saying that a huge amount of institutional knowledge and expertise was lost at that point.

Thank you to FPFW, and Nicola Williams. Calm, logical facts and evidence. With a healthy side order of determination. I am so very grateful.

An excellent result, but it should never have come to this in the first place and question must be asked as to why it did. Taxpayer money being wasted on these Court cases against Government Departments at a time when the Government is picking the taxpayer pocket for more money to offset the damage of Covid and Brexit.

Poor Judge Swift though, he has had quite a number of surprises in these cases.

It’s a positive statement. It’s the civil balance of probabilities test - is something more likely [to happen] than not [happen]. So FPFW were more likely to succeed than not succeed.

Thank you. The end of a long day- plus finding it hard to believe that a sensible response is given in light of the depths of institutional capture

More likely than not. =

More likely to succeed than not to succeed

Can someone explain the following from the BBC article:

"He [the judge] said he was satisfied the campaign group was "more likely than not to succeed" on its case regarding the legal meaning of sex as defined in the legislation.

This reads as though FPFW would not succeed. This doesn't seem to align with the rest of the article. Is this a 'typo'?

Never underestimate the power of thousands of women brandishing tenners.