EHRC have suubmitted updated Code of Practice to Phillipson

I'm out. I genuinely can't understand this at all. I'd rather spend a weekend reconfiguring a comms room with no schmatic and all the cables the same colour than continue to fail to grasp this.

An excuse not to tell the public sector to pull its finger out and comply. The next stage will be 'we need time to consider the implications.' And all the while, men will be able to 'enjoy' their freedoms to use women as unwilling and unwitting sexual objects and we shouldn't even mention that they're doing it because we should be kind.

This sounds encouraging, from the tines article linked above:

... while the guidance itself will not change, the regulator has been asked to include more examples of how organisations can be inclusive within the law.

Given that the guidance has to actually follow the law, the scope for substantive change is minimal-to-zero, and I'm hoping that the changes will just have been insisted on for the purposes of government self-branding.

It is honestly absurd that a legalistic document of this sort is being required to be performative of values, like a self-congratulatory equality and diversity policy.

I used to work in a role where I had to look a lot at the statutory guidance provided in relation to health and safety regs, and similar. It is the driest and most nuts-and-bolts technical stuff imaginable. It is never required to include touchy feely stuff indicating how much we value the fact that no one falls off ladders.

Sonia Sodha has commented on the changes in tone requested:

https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/2044036351880753389?s=20

'More worryingly, they may have represented it as "tone" but ministers may have been lobbying the EHRC for something substantively different, that Phillipson instructed her lawyers to argue for in High Court: that female-only services should be able to admit men who identify as female without losing their single-sex status'

The Graun's "This is what we're up against" with every link always raises a smile.

As Sex Matters rightly say in their comment:

The EHRC has admitted that it amended the guidance after the government provided it with “a narrow set of comments” on its previous draft.

Neither the minister nor the independent regulator is mandated to engage in this sort of delay and negotiation whereby the independent regulator edits its guidance to meet the preferences of the government.

Section 14(7) of the Equality Act 2006 says that before issuing a code the EHRC shall submit a draft to the Secretary of State, who shall either approve the draft and lay a copy before Parliament or give the EHRC written reasons why she does not approve it. The legal framework does not envisage this as a back-and-forth process of backroom negotiations between the government and the EHRC.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/updated-ehrc-code-to-be-published-in-may/

The Guardian has put it's usual particular spin on things

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/14/ehrc-supreme-court-ruling-gender-transgender

Reading that, it gives the impression that major changes have been made.

So we return to my original dim confusion;

What this guidance in the first place ?

As I stated in the first sentence - The law must be followed regardless of guidance.. That includes there being no guidance.

So where is my guidance on not stealing or killing ?

Sadly we will see a bunch of so-called feminists in denial once again telling us once again that they are bound to do the right thing if reelected despite all evidence to the contrary….

Phillipson got her answer in the failed high court GLP ruling which was chucked out.

the judge referred to her legal representations as incoherent and difficult to follow.

the woman talks out of both sides of her mouth.

So think it will be fine, she will be able to defend herself now and feel she can protect her ambitions. Lol

With luck she won't be an MP after the next election. I don't think voters will stomach candidates who will dump on women like that. Super clear that, 'whatever we do, we mustn't upset the sacred caste' is the watchword.

Times article

The Times on this - seems to suggest v little change.

The law must be followed regardless of guidance. The guidance is to help you follow the law. If the guidance ever conflicts with the law then the law takes precedence over anything the guidance says.

But unless I am being spectacularly dim, is the implication that you cannot enforce a law without "guidance" ? Isn't that rather what the courts are supposed to do ?

E2A: so if a company follows this "guidance", it can't be taken to court and there will be no point trying ?

I could understand if having guidance meant no court cases. But since I doubt it does, all it seems to have done is muddy the waters. Leaving simple folk like me less clear than before. So effectively it's hard to believe it's by accident.

Massive hmmm face from me.

We shall see.

I note it didn't specify which May; I don't have local elections this year. Maybe she's going to wait until after the next GE and make it someone else's problem.

What needs to be " scrutinised"?

Missing comma identified?

Delayed long enough for purdah to apply, wonder what the excuse will be after that