City of London Corporation consultation is out (this covers Hampstead Ponds)

[SwearyG]

And it's awful

No mention of sex, no mention of impact on any stakeholders, all leading questions, and horrible clear intention to filter.

This will affect the wonderful space at Hampstead Ponds so I urge you all to complete it. I will be speaking to the Corporation about its clear bias and lack of adherence to guidelines.

that was a joke! I work in the city so am a legit user of these services. I filled in every box with comments on sex segregation, the immutability of sex, the requirement to impact assess the effect on women...

Those questions were ATROCIOUSLY biased. I am fizzing!

Yes, wanderabout, that was one of the poorest parts, that they don't even define what services they want to change.

One assumes "all of them".

I listed a few I thought they might mean: gyms, leisure facilities, cultural venues, parks with facilities.

The last question about citizenship caught my attention.

So this survey is for a global audience and the whole wide world can give an opinion then.

The city of London is a tax haven and is separate from the UK.

What nonsense. Already in the consultation they have erased sex and replaced it with gender. Absolute sham.

They should have listed the facilities impacted as well given most people won't know all the different ones they manage outside London. Not automatically think of all the different spaces.

Yes I felt that. I wonder if there is a list anywhere?

sorry I can't be of much use, but maybe it gives an avenue for exploration...

Thank you. Much appreciated! Do you think the livery companies might be responsive to random women who work round the corner?

I think these online surveys are potentially exclusionary.

Presumably they are offering both verbal interviews and paper copies at the ponds (with appropriate alternative versions eg language / easy read etc)?

The people who use the ponds during the consultation period must be a key group to canvass opinion from.

Some of these swimmers may not use social media and so potentially would be excluded.

This may be particualy significant for some socio-demographic groups.

Yes I thought this too. For example elderly people who don't use the internet so much, and people for who English is a second language, especially women from certain ethnic groups who can only participate in public life if they have access to female only spaces.

What a steaming pile of shit! I don't think I've ever seen such a biased survey.

I got fed up of writing sex is observed at birth, gender is a social construct. I don't think these people even consider the wider public or safeguarding.

I did suggest that they should offer a similar survey but change gender for sex and compare the responses of the two surveys.

I raised it when SwimEngland withdrew their policy and announced a consultation. They didn't reply but it is on record.

I have friends and family members who go to (what they believe to be) single sex swimming sessions. There is no way they would even know there was a consultation unless the information was given out at the pool itself and it would require an explanation.

These are also stake-holders. Their opinions matter. A poll which is posted on the internet is subject to a great deal of bias.

Its a really important point if policy is to be influenced by the results and should be a central part of the consultation planning process.

See the current thread re Anne Lister's blue plaque in York and the claim that there were no dissenting voices when the consulation took place.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3318306-Anne-Lister-was-not-a-Lesbian-but-Gender-Non-Conforming

These are also stake-holders. Their opinions matter. A poll which is posted on the internet is subject to a great deal of bias.

I totally agree. I studied marketing research and sampling bias as part of a postgraduate diploma course and I have been the main person charged with conducting a local government public consultation on a controversial issue and have also worked on another bigger one.

The city of London is a tax haven and is separate from the UK.
What nonsense!
Total tosh ;)

Thank you. Much appreciated! Do you think the livery companies might be responsive to random women who work round the corner?
Don't see why not, it is a City matter, as long as they are not being targetted on their own, but alonside other organistions, then it is as mutch a matter for them as for others... the Livery Companies are an integral part of the city with Freemen / Liverymen being entitled to Freedom of the City of London and voting rights, so anything of relevance to the city is of relevance to the livery companies

I wonder how best to raise this Ereshkigal, I presumed tere would be standard guidance and accepted protocols.

It would be good to know if there were any signs, leaflets etc at the pools from the start of the consultation period.

I would assume that accessibility to the questionaire would need to be in place from the start?

I think they risk being called out as discriminatory under the EA as you said.

But doing a shit half baked consultation is so common. This has the potential to affect so many people though. I feel they need to follow best practice.

I spoke to someone at the CoL today. They’re “working on” accessibility. They don’t think an equality impact assessment is necessary or required.

I have no words.

Called out: face legal action

I don't think it's mandatory but it is good practice. Certainly in the public sector it would be.

I spoke to someone at the CoL today. They’re “working on” accessibility. They don’t think an equality impact assessment is necessary or required.

SwearyG O lordy! That's not a good response.

Succinct answers to the leading questions:
twitter.com/Samantha_J_Rea/status/1022450306242826240?s=19

Yes Eresh the guidance suggests doing one. To think it’s not necessary is insane.

I was also told that the language and specifically “assigned at birth” was self explanatory and acceptable.

Surely with all those solicitors firms in the square mile someone at CoL has heard of Wednesbury Unreasonableness because I think we are there. The whole thing is absolute rubbish.

Procrastinator1 mentioned above thread Edward Lord is a freemason googled it and Lord seems fairly high up (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lord) in this exclusively male organisation.

Anyone else seeing the hypocrisy of claiming to be non binary (neither male nor female) and yet belonging to an all male organisation while actively trying to prevent women from having single sex spaces not for fun but for actual safety?

Anyone else seeing the hypocrisy of claiming to be non binary (neither male nor female) and yet belonging to an all male organisation while actively trying to prevent women from having single sex spaces not for fun but for actual safety?

It's fucking genius really when you think about it, All hail Edward Lord, grand master of the MRAs

What a steaming pile of shit! I don't think I've ever seen such a biased survey.

The Scottish consultation on GRA reform.