Sex Matters - Hampstead Heath Ponds -

From a quick reading of the judgment - both.

The judge appears to be saying that until the City of London review is finished and a decision taken then there is nothing that there can be a judicial review of as there hasn't been a decision yet.

Also, the current policy has been in effect for so long that it is too late to have a judicial review of the original decision.

The judgment also says that Sex Matters does not have standing and that it would have been more appropriate for an individual to bring a claim in the County Court. The judge said

[55] In my view the more appropriate person to bring this claim is an individual who says that they have been discriminated against by decisions about access to the Ponds. The starting point of the Claimant’s case is direct discrimination, and the statutory scheme in the Equality Act 2010 is focused on individuals who say they have been treated less favourably.
.

Last year, my DH brought a direct discrimination claim against the WI and the judge is saying here that it should be somebody like my DH who has been personally affected by this.

For example, if a woman wanted to swim in the Men's Pond with it's better facilities (it is larger and has a diving board) then she is not allowed to do so unless she also has the PC of gender reassignment.

So, a trans-identifying woman can swim in the Men's Pond but not any other woman.

So we would need a woman who no longer feels able to use the pond, with a good reason that can be explained in court and which is likely to be accepted, to bring a case.

Alternatively a man refused entry to the women’s pond could bring a case on the grounds that other men have been granted access.

Is that correct?

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sex-matters-v-the-mayor-and-commonalty-and-citizens-of-the-city-of-london/

Yes, and the hoops you have to jump through to get a case to court make justice unavailable to most women. The system couldn't be more Kafkaesque, especially considering this is supposedly the system upholding equality.

Wrong thread

So basically another case of women need to wait until they are harmed to raise the issue?

This is the relevant bit from the Telegraph article

On Thursday morning the High Court ruled that the charity’s case cannot proceed.
In a ruling dismissing the legal action, Mrs Justice Lieven said that the “appropriate forum” for the claim was a county court, rather than the High Court.
She said the case should be brought by an individual, instead of a group, who claims they have been discriminated against as a result of the trans policy.

That reminds me of a Scottish court turning down a JR of school’s trans policy I think (forget the details) who stated that Stonewall Diversity training was just an internal staff thing…

So the Court seems to think that the City of London bods will carry out an unbiased consultation (given their binning responses they disliked in past consultations on the same issue). I think the Court is being naive with regards the effect of Genderism on bureaucracy.

Yes it seems to be about the timing of it

What does this mean? That sex matters were premature with their JR application? That they were asking for a JR of the wrong thing?

City of London has published the results of its consultation:

https://news.cityoflondon.gov.uk/consultation-results-published-on-hampstead-heath-bathing-ponds/

I don't t see what the point of this consultation was. Even if 100% of respondents said tw should be able to use the women's pond, don't they still have to follow the law?

Permission for the JR has been refused 😔

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/the-fight-for-single-sex-spaces-continues/

On the basis of this decision by Mrs Justice Lieven, I am reassured that the Hampstead Ponds application for Judicial Review is going to get serious, cogent and thoughtful analysis from the Judge:

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/3338

A trans identifying woman refused permission to be registered as a child’s father. This was indeed an interference with the applicant’s ECHR Article 8 human rights but doing so was proportional and legitimate.

TC: And since FWS, that reliance has to be on biological sex.
J: So the obvious answer is to make all the ponds mixed sex. Gets round that.

I've been pondering this since, how the Judge understood very clearly and very early on that TW are male.

Sometimes this is something that they don't seem to get, or pretend not to understand, and want to treat the TW as a woman. Surely this shows that she gets it.

I don't know how she can rule that TW should have access to the female only changing area or pond (if they keep the pond single sex). Even if they make all ponds mixed sex, which pretty much no-one wants, TW will still be excluded from the female changing area.

Based on what the judge said in relation to FWS, surely she can't come to any other conclusion.

We don't have this problem at the beach. Everyone just changes under a dry robe.

I don’t think it’s that so much as - such a reading of the EA would mean councils and service providers would have to provide for any and all religious prohibitions.

Religion decides followers can’t go out in daylight - council must provide night time services. Religion requires all trash to only be handled by men - council must provide male only ben crews. Religion requires children are Educated in the morning only and spend the rest of the day with their parents - council must provide morning only schooling. Religion requires followers do not allow their efforts to contribute to war - government must provide a way to pay taxes that do not go to the armed services. Etc.

Actually I think you have already answered this question!

I think its quite unusual to have a swimming facility that is single sex all the time, so would it be difficult to argue that the council has to make that provision?

Well that's a very interesting way to put it. Where does trans-identifying people's reluctance to use a correct-sex pool (and therefore self-exclude) sit in relation to religiously observant people's reluctance to use a mixed-sex pool and self-exclude?

There are approximately the same number of Jewish people as people identifying as trans, in the UK. Only a small proportion of Jewish people have observances that would make mixed sex bathing a problem, but there are 15 times as many Muslim people, and so it's perhaps possible that the pool of trans-identifying people who might access to the Hampstead ponds is very similar to the number of people who would require single-sex bathing for religous reasons.

Because they only care about race/religious discrimination when it suits. They go on about being "inclusive" but that only matters when it includes certain people.

And men in dresses are apparently more welcome than women in headscarves (for example).

Except that’s not correct as the mixed sex pond isn’t open to the public in the winter.

Indirect discrimination is lawful if a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. It's clearly a legitimate aim to have mixed sex swimming. Otherwise every swimming pool in the country would be living in constant fear of lawsuits from religious Jews demanding an immediate end to mixed swimming because they were being discrminated against.

Indirect discrimination.

I don't think I understand the religious Jew point at all. You can't object to mixed-sex swimming just because observant Jewish people won't use it.