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

The IL link is the most concentrated batshittery I’ve ever read. ‘The law is wrong’. Good grief. They need to touch grass.

The left really is eating itself, and with that absolute clown show of government, I don’t think it will end well.

Time and money! The cost of all this is going to be enormous. The courts will be dealing with GI/GC cases for decades to come.

Heckling and protest by the trans members.

They would not accept Standing Orders as A57 had been removed after legal advice, and wanted it reinstated before they would vote to accept standing orders for conference. PCS is a democratic union and all delegates voices are heard. Without agreed standing orders the conference can’t take place.

A majority vote was needed for standing orders to be accepted, and they disrupted the vote and were intimidating the other delegates. When the initial result came back, they called for a card vote which caused additional delay and took more than an hour to confirm.

3 hours? Why did it delay the actual conference at all?

I was in the conference hall and witnessed the 3 hour delay to start of conference.

The reaction to the removal of motion A57 was anticipated. It is a shame that one faction was able to interrupt conference and stop the democratic work of the union.

Just thinking once again how this tiresome nonsense is inconveniencing and annoying so many as well as wasting inordinate amounts of time and occupying far too much headspace.

"One motion, which the delegate said had become a “lightning rod” for attendees seeking a debate on trans rights after other pro-trans motions were knocked back, put the PCS at risk of being sued, lawyers argued.
The motion, A57, called on the union’s national executive committee (NEC), its ruling body, to “oppose exclusionary ideologies” such as gender-critical beliefs.«"

Looks like the law is starting to work.

"No debate" isn't the same as "declining to be required to break the law", though.

ND was all about obfuscating and hiding the fact that the law was being misstated in furtheration of an ideology.

It’s really interesting reading that IL statement. I can understand that unions can challenge laws but they can’t simply ignore them.

So they have to run their conference under the law as it currently is. Bizarrely it appears they’ve taken legal advice and are acting on it quicker than the actual Civil Service which is waiting for the consultation on the EHRC Code of Practice to be completed and the code updated before changing any policies. Which means they still have policies such as people being able to choose which (supposedly) single-sex facilities they want to use.

Finally a Union showing some common sense. Though if they had allowed it, the entertainment value would have been high and much foot shooting would have been in evidence.

They are even more cross than you can imagine...

https://pcsindependentleft.com/2025/05/21/statement-by-pcs-proud-nc-on-adc-2025/

If they want to question law, they need to do that directly, perhaps?

I assume they would be able to question discrimination laws effectiveness or rightness, but just not say 'we stand against [religion of your choice] beliefs', for example?

Likewise, they could posit 'we disagree with the EA single sex exemptions' would be okay, but 'men must be allowed to access women's rape crisis services' would be dodgy.

For various reasons, but I'm just trying to look at the logic.

Wow, the comments are unhinged

It's good that these activists are finally being told no. It's unsurprising they are having a tantrum about it.

No debate used to prevent women protesting the invasion and comandeering of their legal protections feels somewhat different from a request to re negotiate and reject the law that protects those rights. I'm not sure it's the same thing.

It's one of those times where it might be particularly important to unpick shades of grey and not confuse being kind and considerate of others with permitting them to cross boundaries, particularly when that kindness and consideration will not be reciprocal. There is going to have to be a clear definite no around using women's spaces now, that can't be negotiable, with the focus moving to the other offered solutions and options and how they will work.