Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling

I do hope the ministers/leaders of this church don't start calling elderly members of their community "transphobes" because they've never heard of "cis" before, or don't agree with the term being used to describe them. That wouldn't be very Christian of them...

The Minster also refers to cis women.

How many elderly members of their congregation, who haven't been following the trans active debate are going to see the word cis and say, 'Hey, what?' Is that a typo for something?

If you want to join LWS Locals (we have over 50 members in LWS North East) there is a Join Application Form here:
https://www.letwomenspeak.org/locals

It is free to join LWS Locals - you do not need to be a paying member of LWS, although you can be if you want to support LWS.

If you have previously bought merch from LWS I would recommend using the same email address to join Locals. xx

Jesus, it was always the law. Idiots.

I see that it's made The Latest in the DT (sorry, no idea how to link). They're sure they're not breaking the law, as it's not the law yet; also pointed out that they're single cubicles with the wash basins outside, and we all know that's not acceptable. The Minster also refers to cis women.

I refuse to believe there's a massive number of Minster going TiMs in Sunderland. There are plenty of men who can keep them (probably him) safe in the gents.

Thanks very much Warrior xx

It's willful, performative ignorance, which, unfortunately for them, has had its day. The law has been reaffirmed (ironically), the guidance has been published, and, except for a few tweaks that I think Sex Matters are working on, it's good to go. Sunderland Minster have nowhere to go with this, other than make all their toilets mixed sex, which, I suspect

a) won't go down well with many of their older parishioners or parents with children who are too old to be accompanied anymore but too young to fend for themselves if something goes wrong in the mixed sex space;

b) might leave some of their staff without a toilet (which I believe countervenes employment law, which states that employers must provide single-sex toilets for their staff, or refurbish the toilets they do have to fully comply with universal toilet regulations - keeptoiletssafe is SO much better informed on this!); and

<drum roll>

c) will not affirm their trans-identified male staff/parishioners' Lady Feelz

If I was anywhere near Sunderland, I would be completely u for it too!

It was the Facebook page. I didn't expect a response, I just hoped they had read it and had a light bulb moment.

I recognise your name as a regular here; some ppl are obviously v careful about being outed.

There’s an active wrn as a first point of call. You will be vetted obviously.

A LWS group.

They’re good starting points

Hi Warrior, do you have any links for North East terven groups? For those of us that might be interested :) Ta.

did you email or was it on the fb page? Unfortunately I’m not sure anything on the fb thread would have been noted.

@BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth I did ask them yesterday if they would be responsible if an incident took place in the toilet as a result of this ridiculous policy of theirs. Clearly they would be. I just think ' how can people be so stupid'

Both the Safeguarding Officer and Clergy are likely in breach of safeguarding policy. Haven’t gone through it all but a minefield of someone sues.

https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/safeguarding-e-manual/managing-safeguarding-concerns-and-allegations/risk-assessment-management-resources

If we track their website it’s safeguarding page says Come safeguarding applies.

Link is broken but if I look at CoE policy then it says clearly everyone including this Minister has to follow the policy.

They can't just sweep this under the carpet and carry on. They have made public statements of their intention to ignore the law and provided photographic evidence to that effect. They will need to retract these statements and publically display compliant safeguarding policy. The alternative is to be sued. They invited this humiliation hope they enjoy it.

Absolutely. If insurers want a reason not to pay out, they'll find one! I had to threaten one insurer with legal action once because they tried that on me. Sunderland Minister will need to be very careful here.

There was a point at which the Minster seemed to be breaking the law (putting that ridiculous sign up), even if they have backed down now (and we don't know that they have). And there is photographic evidence. If the insurers want to use that as an excuse not to insure them anymore, or to raise their premiums, I'm sure they will try.

Then again, the Minster have probably been breaking the law this whole time by letting men use the women's toilet..

But didn’t the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York have to resign because of child abuse scandals just last year? Are you saying all Christians should be above suspicion and never questioned or investigated? Have you never heard of safeguarding?

Someone's had a word. Imagine the panic! Well, I look forward to reading their "Safeguarding " policies. Let's hope they've had time to give them the once over, if necessary.

Or, have they been frantically writing overnight?

Fortunately, comments on social media are not the only means of communication - e-mails, postcards, letters....

From an insurance perspective this seems crazy, surely openly admitting that you're breaking the law would leave you massively liable. I'm not even just talking about something happening in the toilets but lets say theres a slip and fall anywhere on the premises, the insurance company would 100% use that sign/policy as a reason that the contract was broken and not pay out.

If they did disclose to their insurer that they're breaking the law, if they did decide to insure them the premium would surely be astronomical

That's Sunderland Minster for you.

An "outward-looking and inclusive" church who don't include anyone they don't like or who dares to question them; who delete topics and comments that they disagree with or want to hide; who consider themselves above the law, and who don't even have working links to their own safeguarding policies on their website - which by the way is down atm for "planned" (ha ha) maintenance.

It’s an enormous shame that more than 1600 comments mostly gender critical have been binned from the Internet