If I lose this case, councils can shut women’s spaces at will

You didn't want to address the fact that your thread title is deeply dishonest and that you are, in effect, soliciting donations on the basis of a false claim?

@PlanetJanette Also, the more I look the more egregiously the title here looks like a total lie.
A rare case of agreement amongst women usually on opposite sides of this issue.

@IrnBruAndDietCoke I too have reported the thread to MNHQ

Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with transphobes being duped out of their money by false claims (and your thread title, is blatantly a false claim). So fill your boots in terms of soliciting their money.
I appreciate your commitment to the truth. This sort of thing is everyone's problem. If you look into Twix, it appears she switches sides as is profitable/as she wears out her welcome. I'm shocked that @MNHQ have not acted despite my reporting. I can only imagine whoever looked into it didn't have time to RTFT and just decided that the OP's own carefully-worded posts were ok.
ETA that was to @PlanetJanette

Also, the more I look the more egregiously the title here looks like a total lie.

As others point out there is a material difference between a specific and positive request for a venue from the Council which has been refused; and 'shutting' existing venues.

The Council has no role in shutting any venue that is operating in line with usual planning and health and safety rules. The vast, vast majority of community organisations have to find their own venues, and fundraise to afford the rent. None of them are being 'shut by the council' by virtue of not being gifted a railway arch.

If you lose this case, all that it will mean is that the Council is not obliged to provide you with a venue, putting you in the same boat as the vast majority of CICs. And even if you win the case, it almost certainly still means that the Council is not obliged to provide you with a venue - just that they need to actively consider the 'equality' impacts of saying no before they then say no.

You're being deeply dishonest to pretend that a win in this case would impact on any other venue, or indeed that it could practically lead to you being granted a venue.

But whether it is 9 or 900 is relevant for the credibility of your arguments. If you think the council owns hundreds of arches, contrary to all publicly available evidence, it suggests your understanding of the legal position of these venues is seriously lacking. If you accept that they only own about 9, as set out in their property asset register, then that would be a different matter. So it is absolutely relevant.

Also, a legal firm would take on a case provided it had even a slim chance of success. The fact that you've managed to get a legal firm to take on a case, even one where donations go directly to them, does not tell us anything about the merits of your case beyond the fact that it is arguable. But almost any case can be made arguable.

Also, it tells us nothing about the actual tangible outcome.

For example, even if your legal firm think you have a good chance of winning, that win could be entirely based on process rather than substance. For example, I don't think it's impossible that the Council might lose if it genuinely didn't actively comply with s149 of the Equality Act. But if they lose, all that will happen is that the decision to say no is quashed, and the Council must make the decision afresh.

At which point they will then document your claims as to why the space is needed, probably conclude that there is limited evidence of sufficient demand for such a space, they'd likely consider that against the alternative potential uses of a venue (not just now but in the future). They'd probably look at previous attempts to launch a trans-exclusionary lesbian bar which seem to have failed, and also conclude that such a space wouldn't have long term viability. Basically, you end up with the same outcome, but with the addition of some paperwork that ticks the s149 box.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with transphobes being duped out of their money by false claims (and your thread title, is blatantly a false claim). So fill your boots in terms of soliciting their money.

This planning control is a total red herring.

Councils have planning control over almost all buildings in their areas. My local council has 'planning control' over my house and the same is true for every poster (based in England) here. That role is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the council can make a space available.

Yes, planning can be a relevant consideration if, for example, in addition to needing the physical space you also need a change of use. But even there the council can't just ignore planning law or planning policy for its own properties (again, taking your claim about the council 'owning' hundreds of arches, which simply does not appear to be true from any publicly available sources, at face value). So whether or not the Council could give you a venue is entirely separate to the fact that it is the planning authority.

Similarly, again, coordination of regeneration plans, or adopting urban space strategies is also irrelevant here. Again, it doesn't matter for ownership purposes (lots of space that is part of regeneration plans are privately owned - the council's role is around the wider regeneration plans, mix of building use etc - nothing to do with handing out venues).

I attach this post from Twitter which was @-ed to me this morning. Others are obviously invited to do their own due diligence.

Donated.

@LCommunity A legal firm would not have agreed to connect their client account to our CrowdJustice page if the case wasn’t solid.

Why ae you not naming the legal firm, Jenny? Surely potential funders have a right to know which firm their money would be going to, in order to assess the chance of success?

I find this section in the crowdfunder rather concerning.

What this fund will do

This fund is directly connected to a UK law firm with a national reputation for winning high-profile equality and human rights cases. Once the £45,000 target is reached, the firm's name will appear on this page.

Your support will cover solicitor engagement, legal evidence collation, barrister briefing, formal correspondence, and pre-action protocol, leading to court proceedings against Southwark Council under the Equality Act. It will also support linked legal work on connected events and rights breaches arising from my work to establish lawful women-only lesbian spaces.

All funds will be paid directly into my solicitor's client account. I will receive no personal benefit.

So this seems a dishonest way to say that this large pot could fund different cases.

Reading this, this seems possible that these funds could be diverted to funding Jenny’s case against LGB Alliance. Or future unknown cases.

The title of this thread also seems to be misleading. Having read the crowdfunder and the posts I am not sure that title fits the situation.

To be clear, this seems to be a case about a prospective venue not an exisiting venue or business. Is the OP saying that this Council would close existing venues or block applications for existing venues/spaces that have already had tenants?

This is opportune to say briefly something about my own experience of legals.

I've been sued four times, thrice by a litigious lunatic and once by someone else. The first time, somewhat panicked, I launched a Crowdfund based upon a quote from my solicitor. Of the £12,000 raised, £6000 was donated to various GC organisations. The £6000 we spent covered numerous letters, two or three barrister conferences, filing various documents, and quite possibly a bottle of vodka to cope. It's only when you get to trial stage that costs, for hypothetical example, quadruple. Of course, £6000 was still significant but, at that time, there was no need to ask for more.

The aim should be to get in and out of litigation with an outcome you can live with. The following three times were dealt with myself.

I personally found it useful to keep receipts for solicitor invoices and proof that I had not kept funds. We often face accusations from TRAs about misuse of funds so it's important to be scrupulous. If you're not, then it's rather silly to be angry and threaten to report or sue people who feel unable to take your word.

A note on Crowdjustice:

1. Funds are released weekly irrespective of whether or not the target is met.

1. If someone doesn't know where weekly funds are going, such as to an unknown law firm, they may (or may not) wish to exercise due caution.

Again, speaking in general terms about how funding works.

Obviously, people are free to donate to causes as they see fit. Over the years, we've seen many Crowdfunders and, since MN has a habit of zapping posts that raise too many questions, I can only recommend that Twitter is informative. Notably, Jo Bartosch, Malleynotagain and GenderReceipts have made some useful posts with receipts.

Last night, an unknown alluded to my being sued for a post. That's an interesting response. Protocol is a LBA and terms under which one aims to resolve matters. I'm always happy to publicly retract and apologise if evidence is supplied that I'm wrong. If no evidence is forthcoming, then I - and others - can only make inferences based upon publicly available information.

In general terms, those asking for public funds should account for - beyond their say-so - where those funds are going.

A quick google suggests that the Arch Company manages 900 arches in the borough. Would it not be them who lease them out?

It doesn't make any sense, and very deliberate language is being used for a reason here that doesn't stack up.

But here's the thing - organisations can't just rock up at the local council and demand a permanent space. Southwark Council does have commercial properties which it leases. But it has pretty specific processes for leasing.

Is the OP claiming she submitted an application for a tenancy on an advertised property and it was rejected? I don't think so given what she's said here.

For a JR to work, OP would need to demonstrate that the council acted unreasonably or irrationally. I would say if someone writes to the council demanding they 'give' you some property it is they that are unreasonable and irrational.

The Council's published asset register does not include lessee details, nor does it include 'hundreds' of railway arches (it lists 9).

But just to come back to the merits of your case, your claim of discrimination - are you suggesting that if I, as a trans inclusive lesbian who is not trans herself wrote to the Council and said 'give me an arch please' that they would say yes? And therefore that they are treating you less favourably because of your GC opinions?

Or are you claiming that if a man wrote to the council and said 'give me an arch for an LGBTQ+ organisation' they would just say yes, thus treating you less favourably because of your sex or your sexual orientation?

I’m also struggling to understand the whole freehold, control, regeneration planning permission thing.

Is it not like if you own the freehold of a house you can decide to change the roof, but not that the occupiers have to host your book club every month?

Same would apply here surely?

You also state that you’d be happy to take any appropriate building if an arch wasn’t available, have you asked for an alternative venue?