JKR offers to fund any nurse or female patient legal fees

I thought it was succinct and to the point. And, more importantly, correct! Unlike our legally incorrect visitor.

I read your words, and instead of repeating the excellent responses by others, I chose to summarise my reply with one word.

You're the one who doesn't understand the actual law, so I'd be careful about throwing insults!

Facilities which are provided as single sex are based on biological sex, that was the SC judgment.

A provider can provide single user / unisex facilities.

Nobody has the right to use the facilities of the opposite sex. The SC judgment even covered transmen who pass.

I'd suggest you go back to re-read it, but I suspect you've never read it, you've just read an inaccurate summarisation of it.

Sorry (not sorry), lads, you can't go in the ladies!

Howse that proportionate argument working for you?

It i exactly the same. Both are suing because the NHS did something wrong. Both cost the NHS money. You actually think you can just ignore the law as an employer or service provider? Of course not. Ignoring laws just because you don't like them, can land you in court.

All this emotive language because you feel women shouldn't have the human right to dignity, safety and privacy.

She’s amazing.

Bollocks.

Always the desperate swerve to toilets - no mention of hospital wards, showers, changing rooms .There's a reason for that.

The NHS is spending millions on DEI stuff - so much of it completely divotced from any impact on patient care (tho numerous colourful lanyards, flags, crossings and paint visible).
The men must have access to women's wards policies (based on the Stonewall fake law) that have contributed to women being assaulted and raped in hospital include a number of Trusts who wrote policies to ensure that male sex offenders could also have access to vulnerable women in wards.
That's how fucked up the NHS is about the demands of predatory men.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/trans-sex-offenders-can-go-on-womens-wards-hospitals-advise-0fmbhm3bn

archive.ph/6PUIm

,

Heartily agree. These excuses are getting tedious.

I used to get this when my kids were trying to delay bedtime.

IF, the NHS is following the law as you claim, then they’ve nothing to worry about.
Being tested in Court would only prove your point wouldn’t it?

You understand that I’m sure.

You seem to be artificially limiting the ‘law’ to criminal law when you try to deflect into ‘offence’

And I think you mistake who is desperate ideologically driven group.

The law is clear. That is what should be being followed regardless of whether someone believes the guidance is useful or not. Any male person who accesses a female single sex provision can be banned and excluded from a venue if they refuse to follow the policy of the organisation who manages the venue. And the organisation must follow the law as regards to provision of facilities.

Workplaces, which also covers the workplace of nursing staff, do have an obligation when they reach a particular size. And under that law, nurses can take their employers to tribunal to get the law enforced.

There is also no moral justification for the NHS to not enforce single sex provisions ‘because they have no funds’. What other employment provisions should the NHS be excused from following just because of ‘no funds’. It is not the moral argument you have relied on.

You seem to be one who avoids facts and is ideologically driven, so I just assume you are projecting now.

The ‘law’ does not merely cover criminal law. But I suspect you have had this explained to you in the past and just ignored it.

If there is nothing against the law, why are the nurses winning lawsuits?

What's going on here?

The whole time after the FWS the key point for delaying implementation was "waiting for the new guidance" - and now when it is out we hear "it is only a guidance"?

So law wasn't enough, court claryifying the law wasn't enough and now goverment's implementation guide (saying the same thing) isn't enough either?

Easy way for the NHS to save money would be to actually implement the law and avoid being sued

your misinterpretation of the actual law.

This would be for not following your interpretation of the actual law, which matches ours here:

'Guidance says that where toilets are genuinely provided as single-sex facilities, they should be provided according to biological sex. Providers can also offer single-user/unisex toilets as an alternative.'

(But covering all single-sex facilities/services, not just toilets).

What else do you think we're suing them for, wrongly?

There is no ‘interpreting’ needed. The law says single sex spaces should be based on biological sex. Institutions just need to abide by the law.

Ironic you use the word ‘deranged’ twice. I think this is a case of using an insult that’s actually more a reflection on the original issue.

your whole stance on this matter is emotive, ideological, and wrong.

deranged billionaire