This is beyond belief - these TRAs need a cold shower, and fast!
I think since this is a public authority - and there are tweets of people saying they didn't just complain, but slandered WPUK to the relevant authorities - in cancelling a contractual licence for 'political' reasons (since 'transphobia' as claimed by TRAs is NOT a thing, so not a legitimate reason) they are definitely subject to judicial review etc.
I've read a couple of cases where for political reasons councils have breached contracts for groups to have their meetings or have enacted boycotts etc and the courts held that these violations of private law (contract) were illegitimate (Verrall v Gt Yarmouth, Wheeler v Leicester CC (which was a House of Lords case): from 1978 and 1985, so maybe the law has changed since then, although the HRA has come in and freedom of thought, of speech and of association are enshrined in it, so they should count for more...).
I wonder if that's why there appears to be an 'evolving' narrative, with someone saying that WPUK had been refused under their first name and then booked 'dishonestly' under another... That would give them a contractual reason to cancel (bit like lying to insurance), and I think they are trying to cover their backside.
So yes, I would dearly like to see a barrage of FOI requests and then a claim in contract, or book somewhere else where a similar situation might arise but prepared to serve an immediate interim injunction (which then means going to court).
These 'pretend' rights, the 'harm' that the complainers suggest - we know they do not exist YET (the rights), 'gender' is not a protected characteristic and the 'harm to feelings' is not and has not ever been considered sufficient in English law to prevent lawful activity or to breach enforceable contracts.
It would cost though, and you really need a good legal team.
On the negative side, those TELI-types wanted test cases.
