EHRC guidance might be delayed for over a year

@ArabellaSaurus your post made me feel so sad. I completely agree with it.

Unless there's some shenaniganery planned, which is possible, likely even (which also makes me sad), delaying the guidance is just the Government playing the same game that all these organisations that are currently breaking the law are. Waiting for the guidance, delaying the guidance, it's all the same. Just pull the plaster off so the fall out can be dealt with. Delay, uncertainty serves no-one. Not business, not tp, not women.

Is there any other law which is treated as optional?

It's always the rights and wellbeing of women and girls that are used as political bargaining chips.

I love this

The EHRC is an official part of the state, an attack on it is an attack on the state, in the past any attack on the state by a group of malcontents would have been responded to by the state in double quick time, and brutally too.

The fact that this government is not responding to this attacks shows the government has lost control, just like it's lost control of our borders, by any measure they are officially a dysfunctional government.

We're in the 3rd world now.

Sorry, I'm ranting. I'll stop. It's just neverending bloody disillusionment and disappointment. I didn't even think I could GET more cynical. 😔

You know the mad thing, despite it all, part of me still really really wants Labour to come right on this and sort things out and make a proper go of it.

It's making my heart ache that they just genuinely don't seem capable.

I don't want grifters and liars and crooks in government. I just want a government that doesn't get arrested for fraud and investigated for collusion and corruption and that does its best to run the country as best it can. And doesn't take bribes, whether in teh form of lobbyist donations or designer clothes or concert tickets or fucking campervans. That's all. That's really all.

https://x.com/ArchRose90/status/1983929554889507277

'I don't think that we can have a situation where there's one set of rules for one group of people and another for everybody else'

Rachel Reeves

And today we see that Rachel Reeves is also opting not to follow her own law.

It's increasingly looking like a feature, not a bug, of this government.

It's particularly harmful as the thing that has defined this government so far is an absence of leadership.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that 'we agree with the SC, but we don't like the consequences of the judgement' is not a policy. However, it is very on brand.

The government are siding with this lot, with men, while ignoring women and the needs of women, especially survivors of abuse and assault, religious women, disabled women.

I wonder just how big a class action could be.

Labour have made the dumbest move possible in the history of dumb moves. They had a chance to close this down, point the finger at the SC and bring themselves back into line with ordinary voters. Instead they will have emboldened the TRAs and their parliamentary puppets and will string out the issue for another year during which Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses are likely to win their cases with the ensuing bad publicity for the Government and their response will be to offer no remedy as they are 'awaiting an impact assessment'.
Labour have a huge fuck off majority but continue to be thwarted by a relatively small number of out of touch MPs.
They deserve the beating they will get in the May locals.

Any business that allows men to use women's spaces, or vice versa, is potentially breaking the law and vulnerable to being sued. If some no win/no fee bunch send a letter round a prison, a hostel, a school, a girl guide troop, a hospital, offering to represent anyone affected by this, they could cost these organisations a fortune. Especially if the cases being heard at the moment are won by the plaintiffs. Any forthcoming cases will have all that precedent. Reverting toilets and changing rooms back to what they were five minutes ago is too expensive but litigation isn't exactly cost free.

Well of course! Smashing up property just like pissing in the street and threatening women is all part of being on the right side of history

So these 50 backbenchers are aligned with this lot, are they?

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1984186826278797789

"Under the Equality Act 2006, if the minister does not approve draft guidance, she must provide the EHRC with reasons for rejecting the draft code of practise. Those reasons can be judicially reviewed for error of law, among other things."

Darlington Nurses v NHS Trust - late Nov/Dec 2025
Kelly v Leonardo UK Ltd - Dec 2025/early 2026
Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr Upton - Oct/Nov 2025

There is zero, and I really do think zero, chance of any of these cases siding with males.

They are all high profile cases, they will all embarrass the government if the guidance is not laid (replacing the hopelessly out of date 2011 guidance).

I can't see this being any more than delays.

Waste of time in my case, though I will do it yet again . Our newly enlarged Welsh constituency has a Labour MP for the first time in its history and he doesn't even acknowledge letters, let alone reply to them. He's one of the captured left-wingers and is probably one of the 50 who signed this letter.

This article is very light on details.

we cannot be sure of anythign right now. one article, nobody else has picked it up

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2025/10/31/cracking-the-code/

TIM thinks this is the counter revolution however https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1okde53/rules_forcing_trans_people_to_use_birthsex/

Same lot that vandalised Wes Streeting's office.
BASH BACK, which has taken responsibility for the vandalism, describes itself as a “trans-led direct action project focused on total transgender liberation”.

WTAF? Every time I think this government couldn't be any more pathetic they surprise me. I think we need to keep the lawfare going. Thank god for Naomi and Ben and all of them.

I thought the Govt claimed in the run up to the election that it would absolutely protect SSS. How does it square that position with “Sss (that we had until 5 minutes ago) might be too expensive for businesses. We need another review”.