Did Keir Starmer just say

No, you haven't got that right.

Anyone can ask to see it, but the person asks doesn't have to comply. It is not an offence just to ask. There is nothing in the GRA that says it's an offence simply to ask.

But it "is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

This means that if, for example, an employer knows that an employee has a GRC, they cannot disclose this to any other employees without the permission of the GRC holder.

There are exceptions to the prohibition of disclosure of information, including if "the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime".

There has been a lot of misinformation about this, but it's quite clear in section 22 that there are many situations in which it is legal to disclose this information.

The caller challenged him, saying GRCs "don't change reality, so the two policies don't match". And she talked about single sex spaces and how they're currently being invaded (she gave examples)

NF put that to him - that they don't match. He responded "well I think they do because I think you can always say - and should always say - safe spaces for women and girls, whether that's um in sports for sports bodies, whether that's I'm in the work I did, particularly in the support refuges and other places for those that have been subjected to violence um, physical or sexual - very very important that we preserve that. Um - or indeed in our hospitals - it's actually NHS policy for wards to be single sex and er the only reason that isn't routinely the case now is because the government's lost control of our hospitals but that is the policy and we want to reinforce and protect that"

NF then said "so if I was identifying as a woman...would I be allowed to be on a women's ward?"

Starmer says "No" and then NF asks what about if I had a GRC? And he says "you would be accommodated but not on a woman's ward" NF asks where he would go. Starmer says "well hospitals already do this, there are ways it can be done".

NF asks how. Starmer says "well lots of them have side rooms, that sort of thing". NF: "side room? I'd get a side room?" Starmer goes "Nick, I've spent a lot of time in hospitals, many many wards have the traditional beds laid out...many have side rooms these days for general use and that can be accommodated. But the rule about single sex wards is - [laughing a bit] - or the policy is already there, the only reason that there's any issue these days is because the government's lost control of our hospitals"

So if Starmer truly believes that this isn't happening then why? Who's telling him this? And who's telling him that staff aren't identifying as women, as that didn't feature in his reply either?

And why doesn't he understand that this is about the "need" to be validated by being among women? They won't accept third spaces like side rooms. This has been done to death.

Annex A also featuring nowhere in his thoughts. Has he really been in a lot of hospitals? Last one I was in did have what might be cast a "side room" but definitely was not and was in use for other things required for the ward.

Has Twix lit up yet? Or don't the twixerati listen to LBC?

I almost feel sorry for KS and the Labour policy writers. Rather than being decisive and just saying, look we've got 50 odd pc of the population, minus a few clout-chasing handmaidens, who are pretty criss about males in female sports, changing rooms, prisons, rape centres, hospital wards. And then weve got 0.1%, or whatever it is today, maybe 1% but still a small minority, who want to be able to affirm themselves by going into these spaces as opposite sex individuals. So pick a side, piss the 0.1/1% off to keep the 50% (plus lots of men) i.e most of the electorate happy. Which would be the logical thing to do in a democracy when you're relying on number of votes.

But no. They're attempting to use ambiguous language to try and simultaneously address both sides concerns. Which is clearly impossible. Especially since the TRAs, and probably now women, will accept no compromise. Its peverse and doomed to failure. Why not just make a full comittment to third spaces for all those MTF trans people who apparently feel unsafe in mens spaces, stop males being able to access womens shelters, wards, prisons, sports, changing rooms, and let everybody get on with it.

Mridul Wadhwa doesn’t have a GRC - as per Legal Feminist here

(The EA2010 already states clearly that those with a GRC can be excluded under the genuine occupational requirement under section 9, so if MW did have a GRC would also not be eligible for the role. This is also explained in that Legal Feminist piece.)

If KS is committing to supporting organisations to use the EA2010 to protect single sex spaces as intended then that’s great! (Sadly not in the manifesto…)

That is very clear. And an indication that Labour are creeping back to the side of reality, sanity and recognising women's rights. When they're clear about removing from schools the trans activism that gaslights children into believing that bodies can be wrong but a sex change can fix them and there may be a possibility of being able to vote Labour again.

This is all so tedious. But hopefully Cass has been a major wake up call about the extreme harm they've enabled in society and they're trying to roll it back without it being noticed 😐

Which is why EA2010 needs amending so that the further "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" reason is no longer needed.

This - if its what he said - could lead to interesting situation at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre where their CEO is a transwoman with a GRC.

Just for info, the person in question does not have a GRC - see the coverage of Roz Adams' employment tribunal.

I'm pretty sure that Wadwa doesn't have a GRC

1

Wow - I missed that. If he said that, then it’s very clear!

(Also in line with the law of course: EA2010 makes it clear that those with GRC can be excluded from single sex spaces where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Not that this seems to happen in practice!)

He was also on about "safe spaces". And how "in relation to the proposal in our manifesto in relation to gender, to put in place, it doesn't cut across safe spaces".

Just give up hoping against hope. Face the reality of wha they'll do and decide your vote from there.

If you cannot ask someone whether they have a GRC, or ask to see it, even if you are police (have I got that right?) then this is the only way to protect single sex spaces. Especially if a GRC requires no physical change, low boundaries re medical assent, and is only a fiver. Maybe this is what Labour plan to do ... make a GRC easier but not make it a golden ticket to female spaces.

This - if its what he said - could lead to interesting situation at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre where their CEO is a transwoman with a GRC.

Their manifesto is clear. They'll bring in self-ID by any means they can. They've told us. Believe them.

He told NF that if he (NF) identified as a woman he would not be admitted to a women’s ward.

I didn’t hear any mention of a GRC, the question was about those who “identify as women”.