Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I've been dwelling on the matter of Durham Cathedral, home to the relics of St Cuthbert. I went with a group studying geology - it's got some very good rocks. It also has a strip of rock let into the floor near the door across which women were not supposed to cross for fear of arousing the ire of the saint. For centuries, and in the name of a saint who wasn't at all misogynist. I suspect some of the Sunderland staff of sharing their Durham predecessors regret at having to let women in to worship.
And, BTW, another saint has been misquoted above. It wasn't Paul who ordered women to keep silent, it was someone else who lied about who he was. All the misogynist stuff in Timothy - fake, like the exclusion from Durham, and now Sunderland.

'Friends of' organisations don't have any governance influence on CofE churches. They are there to fundraise, normally for the building. The incumbent clergy and Parochial Church Council hold responsibility for safeguarding. You'd normally raise with incumbent/PCC in the first instance and then with the Archdeacon. There should be details of Church Wardens on the website (they share responsibility for the building with the incumbent clergy), and normally arrange insurance.

I'd have thought most established churches are now very aware of the importance of ' safeguarding' - in the light of church sexual abuse scandals. Liverpool Cathedral, for example, makes it 'safeguarding' approach front and centre on its website and on its promotional materials.

If you’re ever in the area will you take a photo of their certificate of public liability. It has to be displayed. Also their employers liability insurance?

Id very much appreciate it and can donate to your church / charity

'Christianity conflicts with gender critical views'?

If you knew anything about the Catholic church's gender critical views.....

Yes, any organisation that flagrantly flouts the ruling is going to be subject to a very intense spot-light going forward. Which is bad for them, but good for the ruling.

Trans identified males can use the men’s facilities then.

Yes and this is a concern for their safeguarding lead as they are knowingly breaching the law and making the children of the parish unsafe.

Or to paraphrase, “if someone is doing something, it must be the will of God”

Now that is a broad church!

I suspect they are going to massively regret opening this can of worms!

And you can write to the directors telling them that their clergy are knowingly breaching criminal law and civil law and their insurers have been informed - so likely their insurance is invalidated due to intentional breach of the law.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04721661

'If you knew anything about Christianity...'
Would an entire childhood of Christian Doctrine classes, daily prayer in three different languages and weekly Mass qualify as 'knowing anything about Christianity?'

If you think you know more about anybody on this thread about Christian Doctrine, start that thread suggested by BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth, and I'll see you over there

Their website is non compliant too - should have more company / org details, no link to website policies etc.

Someone who wanted to raise complaints aside from just commenting could really adjust their focus.

Their office email since they’ve closed Facebook commmets is

[email protected]

https://sunderlandminster.org.uk/

I would also raise the issue with the safeguarding lead.

If a teenage girl experiencing a period is followed to the toilet and monitored by some random - what safeguarding assessment has been made and given that likely no one should be alone with kids in a state of undress with adults unknown to them - another issue for insurance.

Contact Details
Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser: Beth Miller
Telephone: 0191 5654066
Cuthbert House,
Stonebridge,
Durham
DH1 3RY
email: [email protected]
Telephone: 07968034075

Pretty sure the premise of this thread mentioned absolutely nothing about Christianity, just the political prejudices of some of its earthly representatives. And anyway, isn't this a perfect example of a case where you should "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's..".

Another student of the master

This is just blatantly making it up!

If women are not even supposed to wear clothing made of mixed fabrics there's no way people are supposed to alter their bodies so drastically. Self-aggrandising, self-excusing nonsense!

But he did command the women to learn in silence...

Isn’t this why the code has been published? For the lay person who doesn’t understand law?

clearly reading comprehension is severely impaired in the U.K.

The first port of call would probably be the Archdeacon, Katherine Bagnall https://durhamdiocese.org/about-us/leadership/archdeacons/

excellent advice, thank you

thanks for replies; so this is how many are interpreting it without understanding the ACTUAL legal requirements for the physical loos.

twisting and gaslighting continues.

Anyone know which high up to complain to (one in the temporal world ideally).
Also what would I say

Yes per GLP vEHRC.

Every organisation has to have public liability insurance.

Ask for a copy, inform their insurers of breach of the law. Copy in their directors from companies house / charity commission.

Their insurance will be invalidated if they are intentional breach.