Waterside Arts Centre Sale clearly ignoring Supreme Court

The Brighton tribunal chat has given me some insight I think is relevant too - I hadn't really put two and two together on this. The "arts" stuff that gets commissioned is the stuff that ticks EDI boxes. I had wondered why it seemed to he bloody everywhere (looking at you too, Home in Manchester) but maybe the options for showing eg. a regular love story, where maybe they happen to be same sex but that's not really mentioned are limited because there aren't any. Or a dance show that's nothing to do with identity. And that how come we end up with The Snow Queen being a bloke for the Christmas show.

I had just assumed everyone involved was fully into the Woo, but maybe there aren't many alternative small films and shows to put on and it's all just self perpetuating. Probably someone on here will know, and I'd be very interested because every season I get the programmes and really want there to be things I fancy seeing because I enjoy going. And there just aren't, but there used to be.

It is gaslighting and if you need local voices to add to this there will be women in Trafford to write to council

The response that came today from stage 2 complaint is (cutting out waffle and preamble) the council

"maintain that the implications of the ruling are wide ranging and complex, and apply differently in a variety of contexts including the Council’s obligations as an employer and in the provision of services to the public.

For this reason, the Council will await the Government’s implementation of the updated Code of Practice as explained in the Stage 1 response, upon which expert legal advice may then be taken in conjunction with the Local Government Association. This will ensure that the Council’s review of practice and policy, together with the implementation of any change needed, will be properly informed, carefully planned and managed."

Then say if I'm still not happy I need to go to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman. Urgh.

It's like gaslighting by now, I start to wonder if I am missing something and it is actually more complex than just "make sure men don't go in the women's toilets, because that's the law." I even said if they want to have mixed sex toilets OK, but these don't fit the bill because....

It's like a parallel universe. I don't know how these people can have such brass neck. Sodding Labour most of the Council - honestly, what an utter dissapointment they are. i thought about trying my (Labour) MP but he just sends the crappest responses, so long after I emailed that I've forgotten by the time he replies, and with all the stock cut and paste phrases and claptrap you'd expect and answering nothing. He seems to have no views of his own. (No view of his own about surrogacy either, while i'm on one, that was stock responses too.)

Sorry for being a bit ranty I'm very pissed off and rather disillusioned.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound arsey. Just I have been complaining to the venue and didn't want to persist if it has actually been changed. I haven't been back to see and won't get chance for some time.

At work I got on my high horse about some HR training saying men can go in the women's toilets and if women complain they are bullies. Anyway they kept ignoring me, or passing me to another department. It had been going on maybe a couple of years. When the SC ruling came I emailed saying basically "I told you so, will you change it now?" Only for them to actually reply dead quickly this time and say they had already changed it, a couple of months earlier. But I hadn't kept checking the training to see. So in short, although the outcome was good, I don't want similar to happen with these doors and give them the chance to get smug while I look like a divvy.

Yes I do, thanks for pulling me up on a typo I feel much better now. And back to the doors…..🤣

Do you mean "haven't" ?

Please clarify for us @littleBillie !

There is nothing to say that they have changed the sign.

They have actually changed the sign?

I can’t believe they have fixed this

The congestion charge that was proposed for Manchester, they put signs up on all the roads (even little side roads) to inform motorists they were entering the zone. When Burnham realised it would go down like a dose of cold sick, he back pedalled and stickers went up on each of these signs that it was 'under review'. Perhaps in the interim they should do something like this at the Arts Centre rather than potentially encouraging patrons to break the law.

I agree it shouldn't break the bank to fix it. But they aren't using cost as a reason not to anyhow. I've just had notification my complaint is in stage 2 so let's see if that excuse comes up, or if they just trot out "waiting for guidance (in the hope it says something different from what the law says, despite there being no indication whatsoever that it will)" again.

They could glue something over the small print. I've seen that done on signs when prices etc. have changed and they don't want to replace the whole thing. Or sand it off. Paint over it. There's probably inexpensive options. Sacking the fuckwit who ordered those illegal signs would actually save them money.

Here is a picture for @roodlegum and others who asked.

You can't see on the photo, but it looks like the white sign is very securely, glued on the black door.

It could be removed or replaced but would probably damage the door to do so.

Have you had a response yet @SigrunGard ?

Yes.

I haven't RTFT, but is it fair to say that, like the ongoing Brighton school thread (and others), this is another case of an org using the "awaiting the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated Code of Practice before we do anything" excuse, despite the fact that the law of the land has to be obeyed NOW?

@SigrunGard just re read your posts and seen it's not just an added on sign on the door any more. I'm sure it used to be, so they have obviously got more committed to the woo since I was last there.

My response from the council.

First bit says that Waterside were looking into it, I just hadn't given them time to respond properly yet before complaining to the council. I'm summarising that because it has employee names in. Then

"Waterside Arts is run by Trafford Council and endeavours to be a welcoming and safe space for all. The Council is aware that the Supreme Court ruling has had a significant impact around single sex usage of toilet and changing facilities. The implications of the ruling are wide ranging and complex, and apply differently in a variety of contexts.

Please be assured that Trafford Council is fully committed to protecting the rights of individuals and advancing equality of opportunity for all. The Council has a robust governance framework to ensure that it operates within the law when exercising its powers and duties, and that existing policy and practice is compliant with the law.

The Council strives to be inclusive both in regard to sex and transgender status and was already in the process of reviewing policy in this area before the Supreme Court ruling to ensure it remains up to date. The Council now awaits the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated Code of Practice to ensure that the review is informed by the guidance, which will provide legal clarity and practical support for organisations and public bodies. Following publication of the guidance, the Council will continue to review and update any relevant policy and practice to ensure it functions lawfully.

Whilst this is undertaken, the Council’s focus will remain on treating all with respect, dignity, and fairness, which is supported by the Equality Act. Any changes will be communicated with staff, partner agencies, stakeholders and our residents as appropriate.”

There are two Stages to our complaint process. We can look at your complaint at Stage 2 if:
We have not responded to all of the points in your original complaint
You feel like you have been treated unfairly
We haven’t fully investigated your complaint

Under these circumstances, you can ask for your complaint to be escalated to Stage 2 of our complaints process, within 28 days from the date of this email."

Phone numbers, signatures

Absolute joke. All this pretending that it's up in the air still and so complex they can't possibly call it.

The toilets are not compliant with the law. They are not self contained facilities with sinks in, so should not be mixed sex. This is not a new law, no changes should ever have been made! And when I say changes, it's literally just a sign on the door. 5 minute job to remove it and bingo, legally compliant again! Didn’t the interim guidance said "don't wait on us, just get yourselves sorted"?
I need to dig that out and reply when I have more energy.

Sorry that was to be a question, poor grammar.

Are you the op?

No answer as yet