Home Office misrepresenting the law in guide for security industry

[TheFleegleHasLanded]

Thanks to @ripx4nutmeg on Twitter

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1299952195622891520?s=20

"The Home Office has published a security industry 'guide for door supervisors'. It says, citing the Equality Act, that trans people cannot be denied access to single-sex services such as toilets, & a trans person is 'more likely to be a victim of sexual assault'. Neither is true"

It also tells them not to worry if the ID does not match the person....
The Home Office misrepresents the law in this guide. Wonder who advised them? EHRC? GEO? Stonewall?

"stopping a trans person from using the toilet they feel is appropriate to them may create a risk of legal action being taken against the pub, club or venue you work at."

www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Documents/sia-ds-trans-guide.pdf

Ffs!! Is there nowhere stonewall law hasn’t taken over?

It’s so wearying having to keep pointing out to government fucking departments that they are publishing guidance in co touch with their own fucking laws!!

In conflict!!!

We urgently need to address this.

I've just skimmed through all their board minutes and this doesn't register there at all.

I've got some thoughts on a co-ordinated response on this but slightly reluctant to lay out the details on a public board as we know it's being monitored.

I've been here on this name a little while here and happy to share other names with anyone with a posting history who gets in touch directly.

This is essentially what Ann Sinnott’s current campaign’s about. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4006401-Ann-Sinnott-is-asking-for-clarity-on-guidance-for-the-Equality-Act

@Kit19

It’s so wearying having to keep pointing out to government fucking departments that they are publishing guidance in co touch with their own fucking laws!!

It's also ridiculous that the public have had to raise money to fight this (Ann Sinnott's crowd funder). We shouldn't have to raise money to get them to do their fucking jobs properly.

Blog post here by Legal Feminist:

legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/08/30/trans-customers-a-guide-for-door-supervisors/

Another Twitter thread here:

twitter.com/NoXYinXXprisons/status/1299986270349930496

This needs challenging each and every time it happens.

Ok, then sack the MPs. Close Parliament.

The various civil service departments are apparently just going to make shit up as it suits them regardless of law and with no respect whatsoever for the HoC or democratic process or mandates or manifestos, why are we paying hundreds of people to bother sitting in the HoC and carefully debate and work out law? Or to represent constituents (a bit)? Or to have elections?

It also tells them not to worry if the ID does not match the person....

I keep waiting for the insurance industry to wake up and say something.

We urgently need to address this.

The Home Office has been a law unto itself for years. I would list all the court rulings it's ignored, but there isn't space in this margin.

How can any government department justify spending tax payers money to misinterpret the law.

There's an awful lot of it going on. Are they trying to ensure roll back becomes impossible????

@highame

How can any government department justify spending tax payers money to misinterpret the law.

There's an awful lot of it going on. Are they trying to ensure roll back becomes impossible????

They don't need to justify it, and haven't for a long time. Even less so when the current government abolish judicial reviews in England (and possibly Scotland too, but my reading of Scottish law is very patchy).

Mmmmm, not sure they'll abolish them. I have a feeling both government and opposition would be happy for the legal system to deal with their absolute mess regarding women's sex based rights.

The real need has now passed, so they might leave it for now.

Wonder if that's why Liz Truss hasn't said anything?

Mmmmm, not sure they'll abolish them

There is of course, more than one way to skin a cat. As we've seen simple defunding of legal aid has effectively removed a lot of right and protections that people thought they had.

I imagine they'll just quietly make any rulings "advisory", meaning they can pick and choose the ones they like, and ignore the ones they don't. It's entirely possible in practice no one would notice.

Wonder if that's why Liz Truss hasn't said anything?

Unless there's a cheese angle to womens rights (other than hard cheese), I'm not sure she has much to say.

I find it so very frustrating that under our noses, government departments have been arrogantly getting on with diminishing our rights.

Even with the Ann Sinnott case, there's no putting anything on hold. Do they think it will be too much effort for us to continue. I just am so puzzled by them.

I can only put this down to the laziness of our elected representatives. They have sat back and let the Mandarins do their jobs, without checks and balances (though I bet they'll say there are plenty). Is no one calling them out right now?

So, is a bartender on minimum wage going to be expected to serve alcohol to someone with ID that doesn't match their appearance?

Will they be protected from prosecution and the huge fine if, in their efforts to avoid transphobia, they serve someone underage?

How can any government department justify spending tax payers money to misinterpret the law.

You can say that about many aspects of the government. Special needs provision for one, they spend so much money fighting parents, wouldn't it be easier if they simply applied the law as it's written and spent the money on actually supporting children? Instead they lie, they obfuscate and they deliberately misinterpret the law to get out of spending money supporting children. But they happily waste the money on legal fees. Makes no sense does it?
Same thing with disability benefits too, the DWP are essentially being paid to lie and behave dishonestly. They ignore the law, all the way up to a tribunal. But they don't actually contest anything when it gets that far. So what's the fucking point? They waste money and time (causing human suffering in the process), all the while the taxpayer picks up the bill.
That's a tangent i know, but a vaguely relevant one.

This is infuriating. Is there anything we can do about it?

Is this something that Baroness Nicholson might take up the cudgels on?

They ignore the law, all the way up to a tribunal. But they don't actually contest anything when it gets that far.

Is this to do with having separate pots of money? I've known absurd decisions made to spend £ks of one pot to save hundreds of another because one is council and the other central government.

In this case I think its the arrogance of thinking we won't get organised and that they are right to get in conflict with sorry, ahead of the law.

They ignore the law, all the way up to a tribunal. But they don't actually contest anything when it gets that far.

As a rule they are very careful not to set any precedents, to ensure each and every claimant has to jump through the same hurdles. It's an egregious abuse of process. But (as I have noted less than 5 minutes ago) we don't do "justice" in England. we do "law". And they aren't necessarily close relations.

@PotholeParadise

So, is a bartender on minimum wage going to be expected to serve alcohol to someone with ID that doesn't match their appearance?

Will they be protected from prosecution and the huge fine if, in their efforts to avoid transphobia, they serve someone underage?

Less than a week after that post, it appears the answer is... yes!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-54026453