PCS silencers debate in Supreme Court ruling after taking legal advice.

Twas ever thus.

I'm so glad that we have wingeezer present to explain that black is white, hate is love, war is peas etc.

Okey-dokey, wokey blokey, in an echo chamber a whisper can sound like a shout, so I'm taking 'thunderous' applause with a large pinch of salt. 🙄
What trade are the genderwangers campaigning on behalf of? Nothing that's been described sounds like it has anything to do with the one and only purpose of trade unions.
Plenty of Unions have had no problem with kicking out women with gender critical beliefs, it's time they started kicking out members who have dragged the Unions so far away from the purpose they were formed for.

@wingeezer
I witnessed something different to you. You are obviously viewing things through a different lens.

Thank you for your concern about my mental health, I can reassure you I am fine and fully compos mentis.

Edited as bloody autocorrect ‘cor-wronged’ to Mentos, though mint flavoured sweets are good too.

Okay, blokey. No need.to be rude.

@MarthaFarquar Majority of delegates, prior to the card vote, voted no to accepting standing orders in their current state, i .e. with A57 not included. They weren't voting against that motion, they wanted it included.

If you think the President and GenSec have no influence on the SOC you're more deluded than I thought.

Very happy to stand corrected, thank you.

I've been on the brink of becoming an ex-PCS member for some time, because I'm so utterly sick of their woeful attitude to women and the horrible, aggressive attitude of the rainbow faction.

Sounds like quite a lot of the membership feel the same and are ready to say so. You've given me hope that PCS might get back to representing all its members.

For clarity BLN is the Broad Left Network, who formed an alliance with IL (Independent Left) and still can’t muster enough people to vote them onto the NEC.

PCS membership is approximately 70% women.

Removing the motion was not Martin or Fran’s decision, it was the decision of the SOC. it was not undemocratic, the union members voted for the individuals on the SOC, the SOC took legal advice as you would hope and expect them to if they were unsure if the motion would cause harm to the union by breaking a law. Why would anyone want to place the union in a position where the organisation is taken to court for breaching legislation? That would incur legal fees and ultimately may lead to an increase in subs to cover costs. Why would the union risk that when we have members who themselves have to claim UC just to get by? We’d lose density, members would leave in droves, this would harm our negotiating power. Who in their right mind would want to weaken their own union? …

If IL and BLN are smarting because they lost control of the NEC perhaps that is because they are not delivering what the majority of PCS members want, but are pandering to the few with louder voices.

If you don’t feel you’re being heard don’t raise your voice, improve your argument.

Shouty, whiney people don’t make great orators.

Perhaps some internal retrospection is needed by those who wanted A57 heard?

I’m not sure where you feel there was a majority vote for the inclusion in the hall? The delegates in the hall voted 3 times. Each time the answer was no. No, they didn’t want to hear it as it may result in legal action against the union.

Martin was very patient and allowed the full democratic process to play out for everyone to feel heard.

Just because you have large, ‘thunderous’, clappy hands and booming deep voices that drown out others does not mean you are in the majority, it means you are attempting to stifle democratic process. The card vote was called for by those wanting to force A57 onto the agenda. If you thought you were going to fail because other branches had greater influence why demand it? Sounds like a crap strategy and piss poor planning, unless… it was just attention seeking, and another ploy to delay the start of conference. 🤔

Oh, and people in glass houses should not throw stones. Many BLN and IL members verbally abused and berated women members during conference.

And yes, the other delegates did see the actions of the supporters of A57 for the ‘utter crap’ little show it was. Thank god some of us have the ability of critical thinking.

Keep it up lads, the sun is shining brightly 🌞🌞🌞

You're male, I assume?

Plus, unions are allowed to challenge legal rulings where the system allows.

It doesn't allow an uninvolved organisation to challenge the Supreme Court.

Why waste precious conference time with a minority group demanding impossibilities? Ones which, incidentally, disadvantage half of the fee-paying membership (albeit not the half union bosses have ever traditionally given a fuck about while there are men to prioritise).

You can challenge the law, but surely there's a difference between criticising it and actually inciting members to ignore/break it?

Removing motions in this way was completely undemocratic, that's a big part of why people are protesting. Allow it to be debated by the floor, that's what conference is for. Martin and Fran can't just run an NEC fiefdom doing whatever the fuck they want - the majority of delegates there wanted A57 debated and removing it at the last minute was deliberate and disingenuous.

Btw, for posters who weren't in attendance - the applause in support of trans colleagues was thunderous, and the acceptance of standing orders was only forced because it went to a card vote and several of the higher density branches with more votes support the Left Unity leadership of the NEC.

I'm proud that most of conference saw this utter crap for what it was. As a union, we are allowed to challenge legal rulings and have done so several times. And it's our duty to stand up against attempts to silence certain voices in the union. The delegate who spoke against a trans motion cried bullying when people objected to what she was saying, meanwhile she'd been incredibly disrespectful - laughing and talking loudly when trans colleagues had been speaking on motions.

@PriOn1 "They have been emboldened by years of being allowed to push their agenda without constraint or consequence.
It sounds like someone with some power within PCS has finally found a backbone and is standing up to them."

Have they been emboldened by years of misrepresenting the law? If so I imagine that the shock of being pitched against actual legal advice must be quite a shock.

There were 25 motions and three hours disruption because this is the first time anyone has said no to this dominant minority within PCS.

They have been emboldened by years of being allowed to push their agenda without constraint or consequence.

It sounds like someone with some power within PCS has finally found a backbone and is standing up to them.

I hope that those who have wielded this power and corrupted the rightful activities of the union will flounce and let those fighting for better terms and conditions for workers do their jobs.

It may simply be related to the long stretch under the Tories, but pay and conditions within my part of the civil service are poor and the direct cause of terrible retention of staff at lower levels. This is a time when we really needed the unions to be fighting for us and not for the spurious desires of men wanting to use women’s toilets.

It was argued that the statement conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which permits the separation of sexes in certain contexts. However, this advice ignored a wealth of legislation and case law that recognises trans people in accordance with their gender identity—and that gender identity and phenotypic sex are not the same.

I wonder what cases they mean? What legislation says that transw are actually women?

In any case, statute law says thd exact opposite and as we know, that has been clarified in the SC ruling. They can twist, turn, prevaricate and but-but-but as much as they like; they're wrong and will lose any case they try to bring, based on nebulous claims of case law.

Blimey!!

Thanks for the info re IL, not easy to know who to vote for if not actively involved.

I was on a union call two weeks ago, and the LGBQITAlordknowswhatelse officer spent so long frothing about the Supreme Court judgment that there was very little time left to talk about the redundancies and reorg...

When we have so much to discuss, especially around pay and conditions, pensions, employee relations/ rights, it is difficult to fit every motion on the agenda.

Any branch executive committee can put forward a motion, and as many as required after a mandating meeting with ordinary members. It’s the Standing Orders Committee that decide which will be heard at conference and they make judgment calls on priority and importance and subsequent position on agenda.

From the linked article:

'The PCS Proud National Committee is appalled to find that 25 motions at ADC 2025 have been marked out of order – an unprecedented number compared to just 3 last year – due to legal concerns. It has not escaped our attention that the majority of these out-of-order motions relate to trans rights.'

How the hell were there nearly 25 motions related to 'trans' rights, to be discussed in the first place. Is that all Unions do at their conferences discuss and vote on 'trans' issues??? WTF 🤯

I say let them be seen and heard by as many members as possible.

When it comes to disrupting the democratic process the majority of PCS delegates are a tolerant bunch of socialists. After 2 hours of delays in the hall tended towards “FFS sit down down we want to get on with union business” and a lot of eye rolling.

At stages it was like watching teenagers arguing with the wind and having a scrappy drunken fight at a house party. Groups of 20-30 standing in front of the stage shouting over the President. Followed by stamping of feet, refusing to accept awards, flouncing off and trying to slam the heavy fire door. Introducing (shoe horn) trans ideology into every motion they could.

A shambles. They’ve done themselves no favours.

PCS leadership are voted in by ordinary members yearly. (general secretary every 5 years)

In the recent elections the Independent Left’s candidate for PCS president did not achieve enough votes, IL lost control of the NEC and missed out on key positions at group level.

The current President and General Secretary (not IL) are well aware of the issues and have been for years.

Awful behaviour - but wondering if potentially helpful in the long run, in the spirit of Let Them Speak?

Might it help union leadership realise that it's not a good idea to give the reins to demented ideologues?