PCS silencers debate in Supreme Court ruling after taking legal advice.

[GargoylesofBeelzebub]

www.thenational.scot/news/25182360.civil-servants-union-pcs-silenced-debate-trans-rights/

Archive link

archive.ph/WpGsq

Gender critical motions have been silenced for so long, but it's not a good thing to head into a new era of "no debate".

Ugh ignore typos in thread title.

No debate used to prevent women protesting the invasion and comandeering of their legal protections feels somewhat different from a request to re negotiate and reject the law that protects those rights. I'm not sure it's the same thing.

It's one of those times where it might be particularly important to unpick shades of grey and not confuse being kind and considerate of others with permitting them to cross boundaries, particularly when that kindness and consideration will not be reciprocal. There is going to have to be a clear definite no around using women's spaces now, that can't be negotiable, with the focus moving to the other offered solutions and options and how they will work.

It's good that these activists are finally being told no. It's unsurprising they are having a tantrum about it.

Wow, the comments are unhinged

If they want to question law, they need to do that directly, perhaps?

I assume they would be able to question discrimination laws effectiveness or rightness, but just not say 'we stand against [religion of your choice] beliefs', for example?

Likewise, they could posit 'we disagree with the EA single sex exemptions' would be okay, but 'men must be allowed to access women's rape crisis services' would be dodgy.

For various reasons, but I'm just trying to look at the logic.

They are even more cross than you can imagine...

https://pcsindependentleft.com/2025/05/21/statement-by-pcs-proud-nc-on-adc-2025/

Finally a Union showing some common sense. Though if they had allowed it, the entertainment value would have been high and much foot shooting would have been in evidence.

It’s really interesting reading that IL statement. I can understand that unions can challenge laws but they can’t simply ignore them.

So they have to run their conference under the law as it currently is. Bizarrely it appears they’ve taken legal advice and are acting on it quicker than the actual Civil Service which is waiting for the consultation on the EHRC Code of Practice to be completed and the code updated before changing any policies. Which means they still have policies such as people being able to choose which (supposedly) single-sex facilities they want to use.

"No debate" isn't the same as "declining to be required to break the law", though.

ND was all about obfuscating and hiding the fact that the law was being misstated in furtheration of an ideology.

"One motion, which the delegate said had become a “lightning rod” for attendees seeking a debate on trans rights after other pro-trans motions were knocked back, put the PCS at risk of being sued, lawyers argued.
The motion, A57, called on the union’s national executive committee (NEC), its ruling body, to “oppose exclusionary ideologies” such as gender-critical beliefs.«"

Looks like the law is starting to work.

Just thinking once again how this tiresome nonsense is inconveniencing and annoying so many as well as wasting inordinate amounts of time and occupying far too much headspace.

I was in the conference hall and witnessed the 3 hour delay to start of conference.

The reaction to the removal of motion A57 was anticipated. It is a shame that one faction was able to interrupt conference and stop the democratic work of the union.

3 hours? Why did it delay the actual conference at all?

Heckling and protest by the trans members.

They would not accept Standing Orders as A57 had been removed after legal advice, and wanted it reinstated before they would vote to accept standing orders for conference. PCS is a democratic union and all delegates voices are heard. Without agreed standing orders the conference can’t take place.

A majority vote was needed for standing orders to be accepted, and they disrupted the vote and were intimidating the other delegates. When the initial result came back, they called for a card vote which caused additional delay and took more than an hour to confirm.

Time and money! The cost of all this is going to be enormous. The courts will be dealing with GI/GC cases for decades to come.

The IL link is the most concentrated batshittery I’ve ever read. ‘The law is wrong’. Good grief. They need to touch grass.

The left really is eating itself, and with that absolute clown show of government, I don’t think it will end well.

Awful behaviour - but wondering if potentially helpful in the long run, in the spirit of Let Them Speak?

Might it help union leadership realise that it's not a good idea to give the reins to demented ideologues?

PCS leadership are voted in by ordinary members yearly. (general secretary every 5 years)

In the recent elections the Independent Left’s candidate for PCS president did not achieve enough votes, IL lost control of the NEC and missed out on key positions at group level.

The current President and General Secretary (not IL) are well aware of the issues and have been for years.

I say let them be seen and heard by as many members as possible.

When it comes to disrupting the democratic process the majority of PCS delegates are a tolerant bunch of socialists. After 2 hours of delays in the hall tended towards “FFS sit down down we want to get on with union business” and a lot of eye rolling.

At stages it was like watching teenagers arguing with the wind and having a scrappy drunken fight at a house party. Groups of 20-30 standing in front of the stage shouting over the President. Followed by stamping of feet, refusing to accept awards, flouncing off and trying to slam the heavy fire door. Introducing (shoe horn) trans ideology into every motion they could.

A shambles. They’ve done themselves no favours.

From the linked article:

'The PCS Proud National Committee is appalled to find that 25 motions at ADC 2025 have been marked out of order – an unprecedented number compared to just 3 last year – due to legal concerns. It has not escaped our attention that the majority of these out-of-order motions relate to trans rights.'

How the hell were there nearly 25 motions related to 'trans' rights, to be discussed in the first place. Is that all Unions do at their conferences discuss and vote on 'trans' issues??? WTF 🤯

Any branch executive committee can put forward a motion, and as many as required after a mandating meeting with ordinary members. It’s the Standing Orders Committee that decide which will be heard at conference and they make judgment calls on priority and importance and subsequent position on agenda.

When we have so much to discuss, especially around pay and conditions, pensions, employee relations/ rights, it is difficult to fit every motion on the agenda.

I was on a union call two weeks ago, and the LGBQITAlordknowswhatelse officer spent so long frothing about the Supreme Court judgment that there was very little time left to talk about the redundancies and reorg...

Blimey!!

Thanks for the info re IL, not easy to know who to vote for if not actively involved.

It was argued that the statement conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which permits the separation of sexes in certain contexts. However, this advice ignored a wealth of legislation and case law that recognises trans people in accordance with their gender identity—and that gender identity and phenotypic sex are not the same.

I wonder what cases they mean? What legislation says that transw are actually women?

In any case, statute law says thd exact opposite and as we know, that has been clarified in the SC ruling. They can twist, turn, prevaricate and but-but-but as much as they like; they're wrong and will lose any case they try to bring, based on nebulous claims of case law.