Hampstead Heath Ladies Pond - considering the SC judgement

[QuetzalTerfLus]

Apparently the CoLC is considering its position

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/25109343.equality-ruling-affect-hampstead-heath-swimming-pond/

Either all ponds are mixed sex or there is equivalent provision of single sex ponds.

If they have a single sex pond for men but no single sex pond for women, the women have a claim for unlawful discrimination.

They made it in!

I suspect it doesn’t mean they are thinking about changing it, so much as they are trying to work out whether they can avoid doing so, even though that is now clearly illegal.

I look forward to the updates about the protest. Glad they got in and wonder how it went down with the men.

I agree, I think they're trying to work out the way round it. Of course they could make all the ponds mixed sex, but they'd have to rename them as such, and that would draw attention to what they're doing.

@Cailleach1 because it’s clear sex discrimination. In the recent past, bollock and knob hanging out of bikini included, certain people and organisations believed that men could use women’s single sex spaces (or they said they did). Women were not empowered to object or , as per the bollock witness, they would be scared of being branded and excluded. We have all been told loud and clear that they can’t CV invade our spaces and booting women out of the men’s pond shows clear sex discrimination. I’ll donate

And if they did that, I think it’s obvious the men won’t be happy as there will be determined women in their pond until it reverts to single sex.

I suspect their consideration period might soon be over.

I wonder whether Willoughby will continue with a one-man protest once men are finally barred from the women’s.

This seems to be the unedifying spectacle the police and others are putting on too.

'The law has been clarified. How do we get around it, so we can go on ignoring women's rights and protections?'

Government and EHRC, what are you going to do about this? Are the rights of half the population protected or not?

They can’t really simply rename the ponds after 100+ years. They were set up as they are for good reasons that can’t just be ignored on a whim

Yes, well, that's obviously the common-sense response

It cannot possibly be acceptable under the law to have 3x mixed sex, when you can have M, F and mixed. This becomes infinitely more true as they had M and F up until yesterday. They can't say there is no need for M and F when they've had them for years. They can't say they need mixed sex to be added, when they already have it.

So, if treated equally, women can expect that the Parks Police will eject any men from the women’s pond from now on. Even when the man claims to be a woman in his water.

The problem is the Parks Police also ejected women from the men’s pond before the SC ruling. Even whilst at the same time men intruded into the women’s pond at will. Without the Parks Police ejecting them. You’d almost think the police were perfectly happy for women to be discriminated against. And male paraphilias such as exposure and voyeurism to be potentially carried out sans intervention.

Hopefully it will change. It is just so frustrating if women still have to take each discrimination case to court.

Surely the police are breaking the law, too if they don't let the women in??

Women are not gonna bloody wheest, they will turn up day in, day out, with reinforcements. Guarantee it.

What fabulous publicity and point proving! 😂

When they all get their precious clarification (and still don't like it) I wonder what excuse they'll all hang on to next?

Anything but accepting women have rights too. Gawd the nightmare.

This is a joyous thread:

nitter.net/JamesHeartfield/status/1919379463965495527#m

@Cailleach1 exactly! I don’t think they’re the parks police either, I think they’re just yer bog standard Police

Previously, the police were following the bylaws as they understood them.

It is now confirmed that the Corporation can only exclude on the basis of sex.

If the Corporation are excluding on the basis of sex in the men's pond, they must do the same in the women's pond.

Hampstead Ponds is such a brilliant case.

Because they already have mixed sex. They don't have to start repurposing bits to accommodate trans people.

It's already there.

Absolutely no bloody excuse.

It's a brilliant example of the fact that the women swimmers are the goal, not the bloody water.

"No goolies in our poolies"

that's absolute genius

Agree. DP chortled and pointed out that it might, given the temperature today, been an advantage to have no goolies when jumping in.

Utterly joyous - agree @EweSurname. Thank you for posting....

This is a joyous thread:
nitter.net/JamesHeartfield/status/1919379463965495527#m

Highly recommended viewing all

Two things I love....

• Classic woman! Midst event, looking after other people: Shall we let these men out? as the police block the way in (and out)
• The police sense of humour ... "Your lordship, sir and other gentlemen" before stating it was a protest.... interesting that, he recognised their self-id...hmmm...

Article in the Telegraph this afternoon (sorry, I don’t have an archived link but grateful if someone could share one pls) - they’re not allowed to talk to us if we use the men’s pond now..

https://archive.ph/T5mSr

Responding to criticism of its stance last week, the City of London Corporation told The Telegraph that “accusations” that their policy was unlawful were “completely false”.

A spokesman said: “The City Corporation is compliant with existing UK law.

Kathleen Stock law strikes again

I thought it was against the Equality Act 2010 to instruct/incite? someone to breach it.

Is that not what the CoLC is doing with it’s staff?

So, not only contravening it, and discriminating against women with it’s policy, but also instructing others to take part in the discrimination against women.