6 London councils to ignore EHRC guidance

Good grief, I must be positively tripping over MNers whenever I leave the house…

Lewisham has been failing to fulfil its statutory duties & requirements for its disabled residents for years. About 14.5% to 15.2% of Lewisham’s population is known to be disabled; but of course meaningful change costs money. Empty virtue signalling isn’t going to cut it. The Lewisham Mayor’s manifesto mentioned his desire to work with the Disabled People’s Commission. Which finished years ago. No sign of him taking an interest in the successor organisation yet.

By comparison, 1.02% of the population over 16 is thought to be trans - however, around 16.2% of the population’s height="1278px" width="100%" src="www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc2205/fig5/index.html"></iframe> main language is not English; & approximately 3.3% of the population either cannot speak English well or cannot speak it all - something we know caused issues with the former statistic. Lewisham also has a large religious population: 43.8% Christian; 7.4% Muslim; 2.1% Hindu; 0.3% Jewish (worth noting the Synagogue is Orthodox); & 0.2% Sikh. They might like to recall that religion is ALSO a protected characteristic - and indeed that GC beliefs are protected under the EA too.

Will also write; & will alert people I know are TERFy locally…

I do wonder about how the Green vote will stand up here in Lewisham, especially if Northern Andy can refresh the reputation of the Labour Government.
I used to wonder about my dads attitude to society, he always seemed to expect incompetence everywhere. He himself was a skillful and personable multi trades professional, its taken many years but I get it now. Many maybe most people aren't really very good at critical thinking. Or maybe just were never taught how to do it and why it is important. So thanks Dad.

On thinking a bit more - is a legal challenge something the JKRWF might find? I mean, I know we’d need to have instructed a solicitor & have a costs projection even to apply, but…

Janice Turner (a Southwark resident) in the Times:

Eddie says he’ll speak to leisure services. I say I’d like McAsh himself to tell female residents whether he will comply with the EHRC. Many hours pass, in which great minds at Southwark town hall must be thumbing frantically through Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/77fbe275-dc42-4617-9d55-1592d5e1135f?shareToken=1bae794735b30989ff8a83e81124229e&ver=article

Las used to be able to swerve the Building Regs (i think it was assumed they’d do the right thing so werent obliged to prove it) but they’re now obliged to comply like everyone else.

I suppose if the councils refuse to provide the services that women are entitled to and pay for, women are entitled to withhold the relevant portion of council tax. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the geese.

This.

Why should women fund services that are not only not for them but openly express political hatred and prejudice towards them? Or gay people, since their legal protections are also within the law these councils wish to overturn.

No taxation without representation.

I have always been in favour of women seceding, but it is desperately difficult to do.

And if you withhold council tax you have to prepare to go to prison.

Hopefully either Sex Matters or JKR’s fund will enable a class action of some kind. I don’t understand how government - even at a local level - can remain legitimate if they don’t act in accordance with the law.

It should be a sacking / suspension and investigation followed by a full suspension if they are deliberately using public office to break the law. If they don’t like the law they should work to change it, not break it. Or
they should break it and take
the consequences.

Here's an archived version of the article, in case you'd find it useful:

http://archive.today/3vWoe

Thanks

6 London Councils To Ignore EHRC Guidance

6 London Councils State Their Intention To Break The Law.

Duly noted.

And that they support a political movement to destroy women and gay rights.

I don’t understand how government - even at a local level - can remain legitimate if they don’t act in accordance with the law.

They can't.

They are taking the lid off a pandora's box and they honestly appear incapable of understanding this.

There are legal cases against Southwark and Bristol council over being sexist underway at the moment.

Legally the councils are on poor ground. So it is a matter of time before they get challenged and cave.

Edinburgh council is trying some nonsense to get round the need to provide single sex toilets. Even the SNP in Holyrood has abandoned that.

This is all useful though. The councils trying to defy the law show how awful the trans side is.

If you think they are rational, could you explain what the councils plan to do?

Are they going to declare all services mixed sex?

(If you can't explain, I will have to assume that you don't have a clue either and just wanted to have a go at feminists.)

Ooo oo I know 🙋‍♀️

They have 3 options.

'Gender Criticism' is a long standing and pretty basic concept in feminism, but I asked what the councils plan to do.

If you think they are being rational, then you must be able to explain this.

What are they going to do about single sex swimming sessions, for instance? Have they discussed this with political colleagues like Mothin Ali?

What they actually do is - at this stage - anyone's guess.

Given that they will have to meet the terms of their public liability and buildings insurance, probably best to come up with a plan quickly. It's not as though they haven't had years to think about this issue.

Should the GC cultists become overwhelmingly loud in their hysterical screeching that trans-women should not be allowed to use their correct bathrooms,

I suspect that anyone wanting to use a public bathroom in any of these council areas is going to be disappointed. They aren't really a thing any more.

However, a toilet that includes people of both sexes is a mixed sex toilet, which excludes many women.

It's worth having a look at the Lambeth article here: https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/lambeth-joins-councils-urging-government-to-protect-trans-peoples-rights-as-new-rules-risk-excluding-them-from-services/

Tucked away at the end it says: Lambeth councillors last month backed a call for the council to refuse to implement the amended code, if the council's legal team confirms the move would be lawful
(my emphasis)

Here's hoping the lawyers are un-captured....

Is this the plan of the week? To shout 'women and gay people wanting equality and to retain legal protections are a cult' a lot and hope it sticks somewhere?

'Cult' is an actual, defined word, with a testable meaning. Throwing it around like this looks a bit silly really.

What, rationally, do you think councils should do about the equality, access, services and provisions for women who cannot use mixed sex spaces and need single sex ones? (You know, the women who had to take this to court because men freely identifying into single sex spaces excluded and harmed them?)

What's your rational solution to this?

Anyone notice 'hysterical screeching' btw from the women who were for example unable to access rape care services? The women pursued by men to the door of their own home because they were trying to support each other in post assault without those men dominating and earwigging and generally making this impossible for them? What about the lesbian groups disappearing underground? The women who'd quite like to be able to use toilets and changing rooms and can't unless they're single sex? How about the women's health support (for women only conditions) that were targeted and destroyed by activists because they would not centre and indulge men domineering and getting off on women's narratives there?

Anyone notice those women hurting anyone? leaving bottles of pee around? chalking obscenities on pavements near vulnerable people? Screaming and banging on windows as others tried to talk about some of the worst moments of their lives during an assault? How about randomly threatening to rape and kill anyone who displeased them all over social media, or crayoned onto cardboard placards at marches?

Fgs.

The only point you are demonstrating is your very serious problems with women.

KindViper
The rationality, as I suspect you might have begun to realise, is in rejecting this guidance as precisely that.

You are absolutely right that it is guidance – guidance on the law on equality, just as the Highway code, while not itself law, is guidance on the law regarding the road and driving. If people dislike it, they need to work to change the law; the guidance cannot do that, and has not done that. The equality law remains as it has been since 2010, and as it remained even when certain malign organisations declared that it was not the law and started lying about this to all and sundry. Just saying "the speed limit is not a legal requirement because the guidance says that it is" does not stop it from being a legal requirement.

Rejecting or ignoring the law because you don't like the guidance about it is likely to lead you to a court of law; that's what eventually happens when you break the law. You may drive at speeds over the speed limit, but you do so at your own risk; you may elect to discriminate against one protected characteristic (or two, or three, in this case: religion and disability must be taken into account as well as sex when treating gender reassignment preferentially) in favour of another, but you do so at your own risk.