Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues - legal case?

[MsJeminaPuddleduck]

Lady Justice 👩‍⚖️ (@RadFemLawyer)
09/11/2018, 08:16
Have just seen this. Argument is Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues. pic.twitter.com/WVkBMxZeqv

There was a Private Members Bill backed by Nicky Morgan, Maria Miller and Jess Phillips among others that would compel Companies House to delete references to a transgender person's past on the Companies House website. The bill did not go ahead. Because a snap election was called.

What are they on?

I'm going for the latter description LikeDust.

It was because they'd been told that the transgender people fear for their "safety", Like.

But look at the Companies House data for a lot of the trans activists and you can see a whole lot of dodgy stuff going on.

Anyways, surely someone who is not transgender would just sue the government if the government refused to delete their data?

It isn't "equality" to only allow transgender people to hide their data when the rest of the population cannot.

And when anyone in the population can hide their pasts, then paedophiles, sex offenders and fraudsters will be the demographic most enthusiastic about it. Quite why ordinary politicians and civil servants haven't considered this, I really can't speculate.

Feat for safety? Do these people not look at twitter with all the lovely 'ladies' waving knives in their photos or wearing fake bloodied tshirts, wielding baseball bats?

Fear for safety my arse.

Yes, I am going to venture that the "safety" thing is actually "don't want anyone to uncover my multiple frauds in multiple identities".

Presumably paedophiles and sex offenders would be in much more physical danger if someone uncovered their previous names.

And yet they don't get a pass at Companies House.

Oh while I remember, another major issue a few years back was people setting up companies, registering them for VAT, processing a series of VAT returns that resulted in substantial repayments then closing the companies down and disappearing. HMRC got wise to that one pretty quickly though, if you submit a return for a repayment now you can expect the VATman on your doorstep to do an inspection & check before they part with any money.

BTW I am in no way implying that Ms Hayden was involved in any of these practices. I've just worked in the accounting sector for a long time and know about quite a lot of the dodges that go on.

This is turning into a: Companies House, Did You Know?

On that theme, did you know that:

• Directors are supposed to declare to CH on their registration application (form IN01 for the curious) of any previous names they have been known by for business purposes for the last 20 years.

• CH do not collect gender or sex data for directors or officers. The only pieces of publicly available data is: name, nationality, occupation, month and date of birth; registered office address. 2 addresses must be provided - a registered office address (can be your home or accountant, or P.O. Box provided there's a physical address with it) and a residential address which is hidden though can be accessible by credit agencies, the police eg., though a person can apply to have this hidden.

A PP asked how come other entities were listed as officers. I haven’t looked at the detail myself but it is possible to appoint a Corporate Secretary viz Company Secretary. So it may be that. So you could appoint your accountant as your Corporate Secretary to fulfill that role.

There has been no requirement to appoint a company secretary since 2008, although many companies still do.

At the moment you can have a corporate entity as a director but there must also n=be at least one actual person appointed. The rules were due to change (in 2016 I think) so that directors had to be people but that bit of law got shelved and I've not heard of it being reinstated.

Companies House has been moving towards greater transparency for ownership and control of limited companies for quite a while now.

I fear we may all be in legal trouble.

Here you can read Stephanie's publicly published account of their her epic legal battle (well, judgement in default really) in which she triumphed in the small claims court against a crappy car hire company. Who then didn't pay up.

Truly a Rumpolette of the Bailey.

Does SH know you can use full stops as an alternative to exclamation marks?

Ahhh, I wonder if she also used Trustpilot to leave rather more glowing reviews of Ocado?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!

I know I keep saying it but any journo fancying a Pulitzer just needs to have one of these threads as a start point. Hell we are doing the work for you! Just fact check everything and get it printed.

Hell we are doing the work for you!
The mental load, always the mental load

The combined knowledge across the spectrum on here is astonishing.

The TRA's have little awareness of how awesome, talented, tenacious and badass women are. Never underestimate women, it'll end up biting you on the arse!

And a few more for Hayden !!!!!!!!!!!

They have mums and grans. They know.

DrOctagon

If you'd stopped at "TRAs have little awareness" you'd have still been bang on correct! 😉👍

Surely any former man who is now a woman, a real woman, with a lady brain and all the womanly feelz, would know that women are more than high heels and lipstick? Because after all they feel just like a woman and what a woman is. They are indeed a woman. How come they'd underestimate their own sex? Surely they’d know that women can be many things and that women can have knowledge and expertise and education. Oh wait.

Any man who says he is a woman would therefore know that we don't believe him.

It's like in Red Dwarf when Creighton terminated his upgrade by blowing his fuses - by telling him that there is no android heaven! (but where do the calculators go?)

This came to me when I was doing the dishes, and well, it's so obvious I’d forgotten.

Companies House, Did You Know?

• that you do not have to provide any form of verification of ID, so no proof of ID or proof of address, to form a limited company. There are no checks. So I could use an alias to set up a limited company. If I filed on line first thing tomorrow morning and paid £12 (yes that’s all it costs), I could be registered by close of business. Clearly I’d get no where if I tried to open a business bank account if I didn’t have the appropriate ID documents. But as a vanity project it's fairly cheap as then I could legitimately call myself a Director.
• if I wanted to form using an accountancy practice say, they would have to verify my ID to comply with money laundering legislation/know-your-client.

MyEyes Snap! I think that it is the washing motion that triggered it.
I've been thinking also that certain businesses need to register re money laundering and found this link below.

www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-who-needs-to-register#businesses-covered-by-the-regulations

From what I gather, if you are running, for example, a legal firm or one that runs some kind of credit checking service, and the sole officer is not covered by a legal regulatory body, then you need to be registered under the Money Laundering regs with HMRC.

Way out of my depth here but would definitely be interested in comments.
Still keeping it hypothetical, of course.

I'm thinking of setting up a company called "Hayden Seek".

Genius! 😂. By close of business tomorrow and for the cost of a few Grande Gingerbread Lattes, I could be legitimately known as the Director of Fantasy Profiles Ltd. and I’ll just ignore correspondence from companies house, tell HMRC I'm not trading, order some business cards, fail to submit my confirmation statement, get struck off, rinse and repeat. Sorted.