A THREAD TO RECORD ALL THE APOLOGIES TO GC WOMEN SINCE THE SUPREME COURT RULING

[MarieDeGournay]

Don't all rush at once!🙄

EVERY SINGLE NHS POLICY READS LIKE THIS!!

In case you missed that: Every single one.
There are no protected single sex spaces anywhere in the NHS at all. Anywhere.

If you want to help keep the receipts please come and help us on the NHS Policy Audit thread. Currently on an Easter pause but will be auditing the Midlands starting next week

Sheroic work you are doing - please message me if I can help in any way. I feel I have found this thread when 99% of the work is done, though.

That is appalling. When we get to the south coast would you be ok if I quoted you for the Press? This is just so unacceptable that organisations are allowing this to happen to employees

Yes amazing work you've been doing knotty. If you need LNWH trust I can help although embarrassingly I'm not great with technology.

I wish!
We’ve only done Scotland and London so far.
We are going region by region
If everyone takes only one or two then many hands makes light work
All totally anonymous - I can’t see who uploads info and you won’t know anything about me either 😬

For anyone else up for helping come on over here: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5291237-nhs-policy-audit-working-party?page=31&reply=143671368

Worse than that. They left the organisation 3 years ago. They have made a compliant about me to my organisation just as a random member of the public.

No worries - bit of googling, print to PDF and some cut & paste. Not much tech required - fill in an online form - easy!

How awful. Do google the London social worker case then - sounds similar

Good for you!

Ok I'm on it - can you update the regions left to do?

@TwoLoonsAndASprout was keeping an eye on the list of Midlands trusts left to do. But I expect we will all be busy tomorrow- so hold on to that enthusiasm! One of us will report back on the audit thread

Quite hard when UKSC didn’t show theirs clearly on the intervention decision. Oh wait, that’s what makes it arbitrary- a decision without proper reasoning.

The SC gave us 88 pages of detailed deliberations. Won’t you even give us a hint?

supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf

I assume it was a decision made on the quality of the submission.

And, again, isn't it odd that no trans advocacy orgs applied to intervene? Perhaps direct your ire at them. They didn't even try.

I know right?

Peter Daly has informative threads on X about all of these matters.

The fact the reasons are not published does not make the reasons arbitrary.

The politest thing I can say about that is that you have just stated in terms that you have absolutely no basis for your assertion.

@KnottyAuty
That is appalling. When we get to the south coast would you be ok if I quoted you for the Press? This is just so unacceptable that organisations are allowing this to happen to employees
Please do!

There’s a difference between the decision on intervention, made last year, and the judgment handed down this week.

And it’s completely usual, and reasonable, for UKSC to give its reasons for a decision on intervention.

I find it’s generally more sensible to read the judgment itself than tweets from a lawyer with a clear agenda like Daly purporting to digest it.

No it wasn't, you are lying.

Again, the Scottish government was the trans defence. And other groups could have applied, they...did....not. THEIR FAULT!

And again, not ONE feminist group was listened to during the GRR debates, why weren't you complaining then? Hypocrite!

I wonder why the fragrant McCloud, V was not permitted to make their,

"I've always used the ladies, therefore, it's all fine for me and my cohort to continue," presentation.

I'm sure it's got nothing to do with they being invited to resign quietly, rather than be cast out, because of them's political activism.

No, it's a mystery all right; one worthy of Miss Marple and no mistake.

Is it? Could you give examples?

I don't think it is at all usual for the SCUK to publish reasons for the rejection of an intervention.

For example, the Supreme Court earlier this year rejected the intervention of the Treasury (among others) while allowing the intervention of the FCA (and one other) in appeals related to car finance.

The only 'reason' published for those decisions was to note that Court’s approach to applications for permission to intervene is set out in the practice direction i referred you to earlier in this thread.

Another for the sinners list

Nicola Coughlan, actress. On a mission to raise loads of money for the poor trans victims. I thought she was much younger than her actual age but she's late 30's and carrying on like a teenager. Shame as I loved her characters.

Good, they can use the money for their own services instead of stealing ours.

I wonder what David Isaacs thinks of all this? Any remorse?