New Green council motion disagreeing with EHRC guidance on SSS

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pubgoer-fights-drunk-sex-pest-25476772

I think I remember that - was it this: https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/woman-fights-aggressive-drunk-who-22184768

She managed to escape luckily.

I spoke to a friend who knows quite a bit about the workings of the council and she suggested that it would be best to start by actually identifying what single sex spaces / services the council have control of. She doesn't think there are many at all as most provision, even that should be single sex, is already not, or, that the provision is led by organisations with national or North East London / Greater London remits that the council cannot control.

She also said the council won't have the staffing or resourcing to go through tender processes again, have no control over the NHS services in WF, and don't have the capacity to move every service under the council to run.

She was also clear this isn't a good thing overall has the lack of single sex provision has a huge impact on women and attempting to remove the few offerings in the borough is going to have potentially dire consequences. IE potentially menopause cafes will no longer receive council funding or be able to run in council spaces or spaces which receive council funding.

I have asked if she can provide a list of different council services and services that are run by multiple councils.

Waltham Forest like all London boroughs is a tier 1 authority (ie responsible for services like education, social care, housing, waste management etc) it may sub contract out services rather than provide directly but it still has a duty to ensure that all the services it commissions comply with the law

That would include for example social services which is a key one around single sex care and spaces

I do find it baffling (well I don't) that public bodies like local authorities, ICBs and the GLA think they can get away with hand waving and ssyong "oooh it would be too expensive to do anything about the services we commission that are breaking the law". Local authorities are required to comply with the law, these ones that don't end up in judicial review and sometimes court and lack of money is not a defence to non compliance with a local authority duty

Completely agree they should uphold the law but the borough has very little single sex provision already so there isn't much to remove - it feels like an easy win for the council without having to do much

Thank you for that incident link. It’s one I haven’t seen before. I have a report with unfortunately details many incidents with women victims of men, all round the U.K.

Theres no duty for councils to provide any public toilets at all.

Having had a think about this and with ChatGPT's help, I think the approach might be on misuse of public funds?

Mark Hynes
Corporate Director of Governance and Law (Monitoring Officer)
London Borough of Waltham Forest
Waltham Forest Town Hall
Forest Road
London, E17 4JF
[email protected]

Date

Dear Mr Hynes

Formal Complaint Stage 1: Breach Of Code Of Conduct And Fiduciary Duties

I would like to make a formal complaint about a vote passed by the Full Council meeting on Thursday, 16 July 2026. Councillors voted to authorise public funds implementing “trans rights” and criticised the EHCR guidance stating that gender "self-identification is normally enough to access council facilities" and mandating "trans inclusion training for staff and councillors."

Gender self identification is not and never has been lawful in the UK. Therefore any Council expenditure on self identification services, or any training procured which supports this is in breach of multiple Council duties:

• Violates the council’s fiduciary duty to its taxpayers (Roberts v Hopwood AC 578) – therefore breaching the local Code of Conduct
• Ultra Vires: Under the Localism Act 2011, the General Power of Competence cannot be used to subvert overarching public law or establish local self-identification policies that bypass statutory frameworks.
• Legal sex change is strictly governed by the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The Equality Act 2010 explicitly protects biological "Sex" and permits single-sex exemptions that local motions cannot dismantle.
• Case law, including Croft v Royal Mail and definitive appellate rulings on biological sex, confirms self-identification policies are legally non-compliant. Funding them constitutes expenditure "contrary to law" under Section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972.
• By prioritizing an ideological policy, the Councillors acted on irrelevant considerations, compromising their public law duties (Prescott v Birmingham Corporation Ch 210).

Any Councillor who supported last week’s vote is therefore in breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct, by authorising this non-compliant expenditure:

• Use of Resources: Misapplying council funds outside of strict statutory limitations.
• Disrepute: Engaging in legally non-compliant spending that damages public trust.
• Integrity & Accountability: Placing outside ideological preferences ahead of strict fiduciary boundaries and failing to act solely in the wider public interest.

Under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, you have a statutory duty to report on unlawful council decisions. I request that you:

1. Formally investigate this Code of Conduct breach by all the Councillors who voted for the motion but in particular Councillors Perkins and Dean who lead the vote.
2. Freeze all financial and training allocations dedicated to these self-identification protocols pending legal assessment.
3. Refer this matter to the Council's External Auditor under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Under the Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010), the council must eliminate discrimination and balance competing rights. Implementing "self-identification" protocols for public spaces severely impacts privacy, dignity, and religious practice.

In Waltham Forest, a policy that effectively discriminates against the borough's 51% female population and its 30% Muslim population—for whom sex-segregated spaces are a requirement of safety and faith—is far from a "niche issue." It represents a systemic failure that exposes the council to extensive legal and financial liabilities.

Yours sincerely,

Thoughts?

@KnottyAuty ChatGPT is a godsend for letters like this, but I would check every claim and case cited to ensure no hallucinations, and rephrase/edit it a bit to sound more human.

absolutely - I was hoping some here could help with the sense checking?!

Overall, it reads well, makes sense. A couple of things stood out when I read it, though. I'd rephrase some things but it's bedtime now so I'll comment again in the morning.

The council’s recorded meeting is here: https://www.civico.net/walthamforest/24217-Council

it starts from 1:26

Only the tories raised the issues of women’s rights and safety.

Cllr Em Dean claims to have worked with women’s charities.

Does anyone know what policies Em Dean has put in place in Wales, Scotland and overseas? The profile on the Waltham forest website says computer scientist and university lecturer

In the video, Em states that he writes most of the motions for the Green Party on this issue, including ones endorsed by Polanski. I couldn’t find any other policies put in place

Em was previously involved in the Liberal Democrats where it stated that Em is an English Teacher and scientist.

Ugh I can’t take any more. Well done to Cllr Catherine Samaurez for her moving speech, not that it did any good. The others I saw were as insufferable and vapid as I expected.

The Lib Dem to Green pipeline is real. Like Polanski for eg.

Would probably be a really good idea to send all the schools in the borough the letter on single sex spaces which has been shared on another thread before September ...

Em seems to be a consultant according to linkedin

.

I agree. I wish there was a wider shot so we could see the reactions from the other parties present.

I’m glad Emma spoke up too.

Good for her. I can’t bring myself to watch any more but I salute their bravery in standing up for women and girls.

I watched it as I wanted to understand what was debated and also gauge receptiveness to any feedback. The speech that came directly after Catherine from the Greens was telling.

The video is appalling. Apparently Moray Eels can change sex. Wow. So relevant.

It really is so stupid it’s hard to argue with. It reminds me of that awful, smug viral Facebook post from a “science teacher”.

Trying to find some evidence of Em Dean being a Scientist (except through self-id). They emphasise that being a Scientist is who they are. Here is a link to declaration of interests. Not employed as a Scientist but spouse is a consultant barrister at Bindmans. Which is curious as I did not feel that Em had a great grasp of the law.

Further search elsewhere online show that Em is a Computer Scientist and researcher with PHD from KMI (Knowledge Media Institute at the Open University).

Those watching the tribunal of Jo Phoenix may recall that the lead of KMI, ProfJohn Domingue, gave evidence and refers in witness statement to the gender critical research network being so upsetting to a trans member of KMI staff that they needed professional counselling. Having read the tribunal tweets about the Tempest case I can see how that claim could arise. But it's not - ahem - scientific.

Just out of interest is it a female or male spouse?