Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Rape Crisis Legal Case - Court Date!

139 replies

IamSarah · 28/01/2025 17:42

I thought this day would never come. The case has FINALLY been listed at Brighton County Court from 22-30 September 2025.

Thank you so much everyone for the ongoing support, encouragement, gardening and lovely messages.

Looking forward to the case being over and hopefully the right outcome being reached - women having the option of single sex rape crisis therapy.

Keen gardeners please Google Sarah Summers Brighton DaffodilDaffodilDaffodil

Thank you Flowers

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
ProseccoStormtrooper · 29/04/2025 12:43

Again apologies if I’m being thick but what is the relevance of what happened in the past, I thought Sarah was seeking to change things going forward? She isn’t seeking damages is she?

OuterSpaceCadet · 29/04/2025 13:07

That sounds like such a horrible experience for you, @SwordOfOmens And RedTent's response is truly sick. It makes me feel absolute rage to think of the privileged, self righteous staff there thinking that raped women ought to be shamed or coerced into validating men!

The reactions of other people and organisations to the victim, after the rape, are so hugely crucial in determining how deep the trauma will run. We always teach children "look for all the helpers" when trying to help them process the aftermath of large scale traumatic events in the news. But when it's raped women.... Look for all the helpers? They're sat in that office identifying as a good person whilst calling me a bigot, thanks.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 29/04/2025 13:21

ProseccoStormtrooper · 29/04/2025 12:43

Again apologies if I’m being thick but what is the relevance of what happened in the past, I thought Sarah was seeking to change things going forward? She isn’t seeking damages is she?

You can only sue people/organisations for things that have happened. You can't just bring a case against an organisation because you think they need to improve how they work. There has to have been an incident, - that you were affected by - or you have no standing to bring a case. (If that weren't so, half this board would be claimants in the case, rather than simply contributing to the crowdfunder.)

So Sarah's case is about how they treated her when she tried to use their service.

She might want the result to be a change in future practice, but that isn't the charge.

IwantToRetire · 29/04/2025 18:27

NoBinturongsHereMate · 29/04/2025 10:47

in some instance a man with a GRC was a "legal woman". Which is why the act included the single sex exemptions to allow for genuinely women only services.

As has been explained several times, that's not what the SSEs are. They allow single sex rather than mixed sex provision. 'Mixed' not being 'women plus men with a GRC', not 'women plus men who say they are women', but 'women plus all men'.

The default is 'all men' plus 'all women'. The SSE allows exclusion of one of those 2 categories.

Not sure that you can retrospectively apply a clarification of a law if up until the date of the clarification it was thought to be something else.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Please stop saying your misinformation about the SSE exemptions.

If you read the description of the SSE as published on the Parliament web site, it is what I said. It was specifically written so that even if a service was said to be women only "legal women" ie men with a GRC could be excluded. It is the only occassion on which a GRC is invalid.

So how you can think it has anything to do with mixed sex I cant understand.

This was also spelt out clearly about how to advertise vacancies that were said to be women only. In some instances this could include trans women and in some instances not, as allowed by the law as written.

And as I keep explaining, whether you like it or not, nobody was ignorant of the law. They were just following the law as at that time they were told what it was.

In fact you arguement is so bizarre as it attempt so say Labour didn't set out to undermine the word sex by creating both a "legal sex" and an actual sex.

It has nothing to do with what anyone of us think is logical it is about the intention of those who wrote the law.

Or do you think Labour really didn't intend TW to be equal to actual women.

Very strange position for someone on FWR!

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 29/04/2025 21:09

"In some instances this could include trans women and in some instances not, as allowed by the law as written.
And as I keep explaining, whether you like it or not, nobody was ignorant of the law. They were just following the law as at that time they were told what it was."

This isn't right. Stonewall and their ilk advised based on what they wanted the law to be, but the law was and is the law. The SC judgement has not changed the law. The whole point of the SC judgement was determining what the EA2010 meant all along. The SC judgement has merely asserted that it was never the case that the EA2010 allowed men with the PC of GR to use services and provisions which were female only. The single sex exception (not exemption!) always was and continues to be based on actual sex. It has never been lawful to include men with the PC of GR when using a SSE exception to provide female only provisions.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 30/04/2025 11:27

IwantToRetire · 29/04/2025 18:27

Please stop saying your misinformation about the SSE exemptions.

If you read the description of the SSE as published on the Parliament web site, it is what I said. It was specifically written so that even if a service was said to be women only "legal women" ie men with a GRC could be excluded. It is the only occassion on which a GRC is invalid.

So how you can think it has anything to do with mixed sex I cant understand.

This was also spelt out clearly about how to advertise vacancies that were said to be women only. In some instances this could include trans women and in some instances not, as allowed by the law as written.

And as I keep explaining, whether you like it or not, nobody was ignorant of the law. They were just following the law as at that time they were told what it was.

In fact you arguement is so bizarre as it attempt so say Labour didn't set out to undermine the word sex by creating both a "legal sex" and an actual sex.

It has nothing to do with what anyone of us think is logical it is about the intention of those who wrote the law.

Or do you think Labour really didn't intend TW to be equal to actual women.

Very strange position for someone on FWR!

Show quote history

@IwantToRetire if that was the case, the Supreme Court finding would have gone the other way. The Supreme Court decided that the protected characteristic of “sex” in the Equality Act was always intended to refer to biological sex. The single sex exceptions apply to all members of the opposite sex, not solely those who identify as “trans”. So you’ve misunderstood, I’m afraid.

DrBlackbird · 02/05/2025 23:43

.

YankeeDad · 05/05/2025 11:47

YankeeDad · 29/04/2025 09:40

In order to help ensure this gets funded properly, I will personally match all donations through the end of the Bank Holiday weekend, up to £2,500.

In order to do this without requiring any sort of interaction or response from anyone, I will just watch the total on the Crowdfunder. The current total is £102,748 (with a fundraising target of £150,000). If the total reaches £105,248 or more by the end of Monday, then I will personally donate £2,500, If the total is less, I will match whatever increase there has been over and above £102,748.

Bump for traffic.

I can see that only £195 have been contributed to the Crowdfunder for "Sarah" 's legal expenses since I posted this. To show that this matching offer is real, I have just pledged £195 (anonymously but with mention of Mumsnet), and you can see that contribution in the comments if you visit the crowdfunding page.

However, I offered up to £2,500, and tbh I was hoping to see that amount matched or even exceeded.

If you do support Sarah's court case, but for some reason, you do not want your contribution to be doubled by me, then please wait until tomorrow and then contribute.

However, if you both support her court case and you also want your contribution to be doubled by me in order to have a greater impact, then please make a contribution today and I will match it up to the previously mentioned cap.

Lovelyview · 05/05/2025 17:30

YankeeDad · 05/05/2025 11:47

Bump for traffic.

I can see that only £195 have been contributed to the Crowdfunder for "Sarah" 's legal expenses since I posted this. To show that this matching offer is real, I have just pledged £195 (anonymously but with mention of Mumsnet), and you can see that contribution in the comments if you visit the crowdfunding page.

However, I offered up to £2,500, and tbh I was hoping to see that amount matched or even exceeded.

If you do support Sarah's court case, but for some reason, you do not want your contribution to be doubled by me, then please wait until tomorrow and then contribute.

However, if you both support her court case and you also want your contribution to be doubled by me in order to have a greater impact, then please make a contribution today and I will match it up to the previously mentioned cap.

Show quote history

Thanks for your generosity! I've donated before but have bunged in a bit more 🙂

NoBinturongsHereMate · 05/05/2025 17:35

Thanks for the reminder. I've nudged a couple of other relevant threads.

EweSurname · 05/05/2025 17:42

Done! Thanks for the nudge

socialdilemmawhattodo · 05/05/2025 18:20

Thanks for the nudge.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 05/05/2025 18:38

Done and bumping (bumped another thread too) Many thanks @YankeeDad It's been such a long time and Sarah's being so determined to keep going.

JuneFTW · 05/05/2025 19:08

Done. Thank you and best of luck Sarah.

DecorMadness · 05/05/2025 19:12

Contributed. Thank you @YankeeDad and good luck and good wishes to Sarah

TicklishLemur · 05/05/2025 19:45

IwantToRetire · 15/02/2025 19:33

Hope you dont mind me posting this here, but it shows just how far the anti women's sex based rights movement ie TRAs, have gone.

On another thread I wanted to mention a relatively new union that focuses on women in low paid jobs. I had heard about them through women working at Solace Women's Aid going on strike. (Not about managers etc., but how cuts to funding will mean many will be out of a job come 31 March.)

So I thought I would look at the web page for the union - United Voices of the World - to learn a bit about them.

And was horrified to see they have written an opinion piece in support of Survivors Network because they "have been targeted under equalities law for their trans-inclusive approach". https://www.uvwunion.org.uk/en/news/2022/05/statement-in-support-of-survivors-network/

All these groups taking this grand standing position to virtue signal too each other, and never for one moment reflecting on, let alone commenting on the terrible impact this has on women survivors of male violence.

Sorry for any upset this might cause, but worth being aware of just how far reaching the trans narrative has been.

And why it seems to come down to lone women, such as IamSarah to challenge this attack on women's sex based rights.

(edited to add: I have no idea whether the women working at Solace Women's Aid support this - they may be unaware as the article is from 2022)

Edited

Surely a truly trans inclusive approach would be to make transwomen welcome in a male support group and transmen welcome in a female support group? As I understand it there is basically no provision for transmen in Brighton with such women being told by Survivors Network to self refer to ManKind, a charity for men. What a ridiculous set up where men who claim they are women are welcomed to a women's group but not actual women if they are trans-identified.

I do appreciate it can be complex with transmen who appear very much like men and they may need to be excluded for the wellbeing of women attending. But surely it would make more sense to have the group open to transmen rather than transwomen!

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 05/05/2025 19:56

Just donated.

AlexandraLeaving · 05/05/2025 20:13

Done. Thank you @YankeeDad and good luck @IamSarah

DuchessofReality · 05/05/2025 20:17

Bump. Wishing you all the best of luck.

FigRollsAlly · 05/05/2025 20:30

Donated again, thanks YankeeDad.

KnottyAuty · 05/05/2025 20:43

Done

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 05/05/2025 21:31

Bumping again for @IamSarah

FigRollsAlly · 05/05/2025 22:10

Extra donated since YankeeDad gave £195 today is £675 so £870 altogether since he first posted his generous offer. Bumping in the hope of some more donations before midnight!

SidewaysOtter · 05/05/2025 22:33

Done!

Catiette · 05/05/2025 22:35

Anyone able to help? Just tried to make a donation 3 times. Have used Crowd Justice before, so not sure why, but... Each time the payment's about to go through, with the phone app asking for confirmation etc., it shows up as asking me to confirm £0. I've tried 2 cards. Utterly bemused.

Swipe left for the next trending thread