Need guidance on how to reply to a newsletter please

Even more confusingly, ECHR is often used for both the Convention (the treaty setting out the rights) and the Court (the actual decision making body when a case is brought). Which is why I (and some others) use ECtHR for the latter.

Also, be aware there are two bodies with similar acronyms that people often get confused: the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The first is the UK body that is handing down guidance (that everyone seems to think they can ignore) on how to implement the SC ruling. The second is a European court of law.

even if there were such a legal case in progress, the SC ruling would remain LAW until such time as a ruling by the ECHR either agreed with the SC or ruled that it was wrong.

And even if the ECtHR ruled there was a breech, the EA would still remain law unless and until the UK parliament decided to revise it. The ECtHR cannot make national laws, cannot override existing national laws, and cannot compel a government to fix a breech of international human rights law - it can only advise that there has been a breech and recommend sorting it out.

This is the law - picture of a judge
This is not the law - picture of a trans celebrity

Because there is no identified breech of the UKs human rights obligations here.

The supreme court takes precedence UNLESS a case is raised which is then sent to the ECHR for a ruling and the ECHR only then overules ONCE it has made an explicit ruling on that breech.

The UK courts are sovereign and there isn't a higher court unless someone brings a claim and the UK courts are SHOWN to have breeched our own legal obligations.

In this case, this ruling has NOT been questioned. The Scottish government were given leave to appeal if they wanted, but they chose not to.

Not is there any legal case in progress to take this to the SC in action. Someone who have to bring a case and it would have to go through the UK courts and THEN be given leave to be referred to the ECHR. So several stages before a case would even be eligible for a ECHR hearing. Which might well be rejected as not for the ECHR to pass judgement on as there were insufficient grounds to bring the case.

And even if there were such a legal case in progress, the SC ruling would remain LAW until such time as a ruling by the ECHR either agreed with the SC or ruled that it was wrong.

You don't get to say, "oh well I don't like the ruling so I'm going to ignore it until the ECHR says differentlu, because frankly that might never happen!

Once again this is people trying it on and trying to 'go ahead of the law' which has never been lawfully agreed, written or approved in any way shape or form.

Anyone saying differently is just legally illiterate or trying to deliberately mislead you.

Can someone explain to me why that's crap?

In terms they're likely to understand? You might need a picture book.

Someone keeps telling me that the supreme Court doesn't supersede the the ECHR and that therefore the judgment is illegal. Can someone explain to me why that's crap?

In exactly what way is a ruling by the highest court in the land, the supreme court, not the law?

Answers on a postcard to the amateur columnist.

The supreme court ruled that for all purposes sex means biological sex. Otherwise the law makes no sense. Sex has to mean biological sex otherwise lesbians and gay men have no legal definition and therefore way to define their rights as homosexuals. The same, ironically, applies to trans people just as much as women.

The idea that the ruling is unlawful is hilarious.

What does the writer think the purpose of the Supreme Court is? For gathering public opinion? For grandstanding?

How the hell is a Union who advises members on the law, sending stuff like this out without reading and understanding the law??!

This is probablynthe key section of Wortley's thread, for your purposes, backed up by quotes from all the others saying "it is the law".

"the law in this case is found in the Equality Act 2010. The authoritative determination of the meaning of the language relating to sex, woman, and man in the 2010 Act is the decision of the supreme court in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish ministers [2025] UKSC 16
When a court reaches a decision on a question of law (such as on the meaning of legislation) the effect of that determination is retroactive. This follows from the declaratory theory of judicial law making whereby a judicial decision clarifies what the law is. The declaratory
theory is the normal approach in relation to judicial decision making, see for example Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln Council [1999] 2 A.C. 349 where the principle is explained in the speech of Lord Goff.
(d) cumulatively this means that disregarding the legal determination which is retroactive but has clearly applied since the date of the decision in FWS, pending a new code of practice, leaves a duty holder that does so at risk of legal action where they do not comply
This will be relevant, for example, to those duty holders who have public liability or other insurance which covers potential liabilities."

Baroness Falkner https://www.politicshome.com/opinion/article/supreme-court-ruling-equality-act-cause-no-confusion-judgment-model-clarity

Akua Reindorff https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1918389949919052129?t=oAtnVhMqusLiz4jlnnVDRg&s=19

Reem Alsalem https://x.com/UNSRVAW/status/1918307286910730434?t=HXtdurKrzfUqYjzUsZdVkQ&s=19

And Scott Wort ley (Scottish law lecturer) Check out this thread at Thread Reader App. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1918408027348103227.html

Would anything Akua Reindorf or Sex Matters have written be useful?