Woman banned from Council gyms...guess why? Protest 10th Jan at 1 pm see post on pg.7

Where's your evidence of this particular hierarchy you cite? We all know that the law has sentencing guidelines in terms of seriousness but to make this particular claim about alcohol seems ... odd?

Personally I'd not make an argument that the crimes of trans sex offender Katie Dolatowski (who sexually asasaulted a young girl by going into a woman's toilets is lower on a hierarchy than selling alcohol to a 16 year old ... but you do you I suppose.

It's harder, practically, to enforce civil rights than criminal law. And it's not a given that a TW in a changing room is inherently committing voyeurism/indecent exposure, so I dont see the CPS taking an interest except in the most egregious of cases. In any case the TW doesn't even have to exist: it's the policy that creates the problem, by making women unwilling or unable to use the CR, once they realise men are allowed in.

I feel that the real problem right now is that the institutions are against us. As pointed out in the Darlington judgment, there are laws mandating single-sex provision on pain of criminal sanction, such as the Workplace Regulations (but also laws about prisons and schools). People could get fined, at least.

Yet, the institutions (eg ScotGov) are straining every sinew to continue to break these laws, as well as to ignore FWS by endorsing discriminatory practices, punishing anyone who complains, and hiding what is going on under weaselly language.

Southwark Council should be protecting all its residents' rights under EA2010. At the very least they should require their gyms to put up signs saying 'this is the women's changing room, but any man who wishes to use it may also do so'.

How did the institutions get so captured, when surveys tell us that fewer than 20% believe in this nonsense?

Absolutely. And you'd like to think that one big financial judgement would be enough to scare everybody into compliance.

I just think it's better to put the onus to do so on them before it gets to the point that a victim has to sue.

They would need to be found to have given access for the express purpose of an offense being committed.

In the case of a communal changing room, this is exactly what they have done. A man entering a female changing room is likely to see women and girls in a state of undress (voyeurism) and is also likely to remove his own clothing (indecent exposure).

Why else would he be in there?

There is a hierarchy of wrongdoing, and clearly the government thinks that selling alcohol to a 16 year old is higher up on it than an organisation and it's employees failing to enforce the legal requirements of their single-sex spaces.

No. It thinks they are different matters that fall under different legal strictures.

There is a hierarchy of wrongdoing, and clearly the government thinks that selling alcohol to a 16 year old is higher up on it than an organisation and it's employees failing to enforce the legal requirements of their single-sex spaces.

I'm puzzled that the new guidance doesn't appear to include legal meaningful legal consequences.

If a business could be sanctioned with heavy fines, or having its license to operate suspended or revoked, and it's employees could face criminal prosecution for allowing anyone but biological woman into their single-sex spaces, surely that would incentivise them to get it right?

Organisations are being repeatedly told that women don't consent to mixed sex facilities on the basis of, among other things, the risks to safeguarding, the risk of assault, voyeurism and indecent exposure.

It's going to become increasingly unlikely that any organisation will be able to plead ignorance when women are constantly warning them.

It's the modern-progressive-inclusive-intellectual variant of pious fraud - instead of "Lies for Jesus" it's "Obfuscation for Righteousness"

Quite

They will be breaching equality law. Like discriminating against employing gay people or firing a woman because she's pregnant.

A quick google search:

• Criminal Exceptions: While most breaches are civil, it is a criminal offence for an employer to knowingly or recklessly make a false statement about the lawfulness of doing something under the Act (punishable by a fine).
• EHRC Powers: The EHRC can enforce the Act and, in specific, limited cases (e.g., failure to comply with certain notices), can take action that may lead to criminal offences and "level 5" fines (unlimited).

Well it's JUST SO COMPLICATED to have single sex spaces, we may as well not bother. All these silly women making a silly fuss over nothing.

Presumably that allows for those individuals / organisations enabling men to access girls undressing in what should be a single sex space, to be prosecuted as it would be argued that they should know that allowing a man to access girls in this situation enables the sex offences already mentioned.

It wouldn't, no. They would need to be found to have given access for the express purpose of an offense being committed.

I think an interesting discussion could be had around whether a member of staff knowingly giving a man access to a women's single-sex space would meet the bar for a charge of criminal negligence, were they to assault someone.

I’m puzzled by this seeming attempt to create a sort of hierarchy of wrongdoing.

It's discrimination law.

Which, as we've seen in court cases, can be very costly for those breaching them.

Right...so we agree, a civil issue that would not involve criminal prosecutions as the PP suggested.

But then crimes of indecent exposure and voyeurism still exist. And being ignorant of them isn't, apparently, a defence.

They certainly do, but we're talking about the legal ramifications organizations who don't comply with the government's incoming COP will face.

Maybe you missed the posts which carefully explained that breaking the civil law by allowing men into legal single sex spaces for women can also include them breaking criminal law - ie the sex offences of voyeurism and indecent exposure?

In addition to these offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 there's also Section 14 of "Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence. This is aimed at "preparatory acts" allowing for prosecution even if no sexual activity occurs.

Presumably that allows for those individuals / organisations enabling men to access girls undressing in what should be a single sex space, to be prosecuted as it would be argued that they should know that allowing a man to access girls in this situation enables the sex offences already mentioned.

It really is long overdue for safeguarding girls to be prioritised over the demands of men seeking their validation or thrills from gaining access to women's single sex spaces.

It's discrimination law.

Which, as we've seen in court cases, can be very costly for those breaching them.

But then crimes of indecent exposure and voyeurism still exist. And being ignorant of them isn't, apparently, a defence.

Yes, but my question was...

are we talking 'breaking the law' in the same way that a shop selling booze to a 16 year old can be fined and their staff criminally prosecuted, rather than a civil matter?

...to which @Namelessnelly replied...

Well yes.

Which appears not to be the case.

Yes. Just because action might end up being civil doesn’t mean it is not a law.

A law is still a law even if breaking it is classed as a civil, rather than a criminal offence.

One can easily lead to the other.

Facilitating indecent exposure isn't any less illegal, just because you have a policy that allows it.

Breaking which law?

Because other posters seem to be suggesting that it will remain a civil matter, so not comparable with how shops selling alcohol to someone underage are criminally prosecuted.

A criminal offense prosecuted by the authorities and a civil matter that an injured party can sue over are entirely different things.

I think it's a civil matter rather than criminal, so the penalties will be fines for the company or organisation breaking the law.

They would also open themselves up to being sued, so you need to factor in possible claims for compensation as well as legal costs and fines if you're considering ignoring the law.

But there may be associated criminal acts which could take place as a result of organisations and companies breaking the law. The obvious ones are indecent exposure and voyeurism. I don't know if an organisation allowing men into women's changing rooms (for example) could be viewed as having facilitated the criminal act and employees face criminal charges, which would be a comparable situation to someone knowingly selling alcohol to a 16 year old.

You might want to get proper legal advice rather than opinions from unqualified people (like me) on Mumsnet if you're considering breaking the law.

Whilst I understand the fear that abusive men could abuse the system and pretend to identify as a woman, trans women have largely been using 'female' changing rooms since 2010, with very few reported incidences.

The mental disconnect it takes for someone to post this actually on a thread about a woman who did 'report the incidence', and had the police called on her, has been banned and may have to go to court, is extraordinary.

And it's not the first time, either. Quite a few people say well no one complained, right in the middle of someone bloody complaining and being heavily penalised for it.

Someone apparently unable to grasp that very basic principle of safeguarding & who affects not to know that paraphilias cluster & constitute elevated risk of sexual offending doesn't seem at all suited to your vaunted work context.

Quite.

That's all I wanted to know, thank you for clarifying. I'm not aware of anything that's been said about the legal implications for organizations, that's why I was asking.