We’ve just lost our space — 2 days before our event

[LCommunity]

We applied back in May to hold a small lesbian social at Potters Fields Park.
The Temporary Event Notice was approved.
Today, with only 2 days to go, they’ve pulled it.
Why?
Because the word lesbian appeared.
They’ve now called it “political”.
It wasn’t a protest. Just a chance for women to meet, sit outside, and build some safe space.
Their lease bans “religious or political” events. Somehow, a lesbian meet-up has been put in that category.
We’re not cancelling. We’ll simply move to the public pavement just outside the park.

If anyone’s curious or wants to understand more, full details are here: https://thelcommunity.com/pavement-bar/

Exactly. Nothing religious, nothing political — just lesbians trying to hold a simple outdoor meet-up like any other community would. The “political” excuse came after the fact.

I hear you but worth being clear: the event was already fully applied for before any denial. It wasn’t organised as a reaction or protest it only became an issue when the word lesbian triggered extra scrutiny. That’s why we’re calling it out.

It really is. We followed all the normal processes. The only thing that made it “political” was them seeing the word lesbian.

Exactly. It does sound like the individuals were uncomfortable but boxed in. The problem is higher up something about lesbians gathering triggers gatekeeping that wouldn’t happen for any other group.

Honestly sometimes it feels like that’s exactly how they see us. We’re simply trying to exist, in public, like anyone else.

That’s exactly the problem. Lesbians meeting in public shouldn’t be controversial. But suddenly our existence without male supervision gets framed as political.

This is exactly what we’re up against. Any women-only space suddenly gets interrogated. If it’s lesbian, even more so. The rules shift the moment it’s us.

Exactly they made it political. We simply applied for a small social event, exactly as anyone else would. But once they saw the word lesbian, everything shifted.

You're spot on. We highly doubt the same would’ve happened if it were a gay men’s event. And yes this falls under both sex and sexual orientation discrimination. We’ve started reaching out for legal advice and media coverage. The sequence was: approved first, pulled later. That’s part of the issue. Thank you for the Telegraph suggestion we may well take that route.

We don’t know. But the wider public pressure is starting to build and every bit of visibility helps.

Exactly the definition of “political” they’re hiding behind makes no sense here. We applied for a private social meet-up, nothing party-political, no campaigning, no public speeches. The decision was discriminatory, not procedural.

Completely agree. This isn’t some abstract debate. It’s real-world homophobia being exercised through policy to stop lesbians gathering. That’s the pattern. Quiet until we meet in public then suddenly it’s a problem.

Yes that’s exactly the issue. The fact that lesbians meeting for a picnic now counts as “controversial” shows how far backwards we’re being pushed. We are moving forward with legal advice and external support.

Exactly plenty of groups with some political aspect are allowed stalls and space. But somehow lesbians quietly meeting for a drink triggers a different standard.

That’s exactly how we read it too. The subtext was clear: “Go elsewhere.” But no actual policy breach just quiet deflection.

Yes the timing, the wording, and the influence from outside pressure all point to the same issue. They didn’t cite any rule breach originally. Only after seeing the word lesbian did “political” get applied. Thank you for the detail very useful.

The cancellation email didn’t mention lesbians but our original, fully approved application did. The moment that word appeared, everything shifted. That’s the reality we’re dealing with.

Exactly it’s a public open space. People picnic there all the time. The only thing different here was lesbians gathering under that name. That’s what triggered the problem.

That’s a good summary and yes, I can clarify: this was simply a social event for lesbians to meet and socialise, nothing more. It wasn't linked to the previous lease issue but the pattern keeps repeating: whenever lesbians try to organise something public and female-only, barriers appear. This time, “political” was the excuse.

Sorry, my message was not 100% clear - very supportive of you and feel that this probably needs to be fought - definitely hits issues with legality… however I think they feel they have an out with the concept of ‘being political’ and as always it is difficult to prove why someone makes a decision even if you know full well why they did!

OP thank you for all your replies. You’re not some kind of banned terror group FFS.

I forgot to say- please before you spend any money on legal advice, go to the EHRC. It’s literally their job to help/force organisations to implement the Equality Act. They also need to know- while they are drafting up guidance- that these are the sorts of ploys that captured organisations will use, to try to break the Equality Act.

The Supreme Court clarification gives these captured organisations nowhere to hide though. There’s nothing wrong with women getting together without men and never has been. but since they won’t listen to women’s groups let the EHRC give them a call.

I'm sorry you've been stuffed like this and wish you well in securing redress. In my opinion, this is deliberate, a TRA has seen it and sat on it until now, knowing that there's very little you can do in two days.

This is shit, I’m sorry

it’s such blatant homophobia and sexism. I really don’t see how the people who do this can believe (as I’m sure they do), that they are on the right side of history

Delores Umbridge comes to mind

Good idea, except that in our (the NHS audit group’s) experience, the EHRC have their hands beyond full. There aren’t enough of them, and they are already fighting fires on many fronts. Yes, worth lodging a complaint with them, for a paper trail, but I suspect they will not be able to actually do anything at this point.

Can you see when their policy introduced the “non-political” requirement?

As an example, there was a climate rally there in 2007
https://web.archive.org/web/20070708172130/www.christianaid.org.uk/stoppoverty/climatechange/march/carbonmarch.aspx

If the non-political requirement was in place then, it suggests that the reference to politics means party political, rather than “things people feel strongly about”

Edited to add, that was just from a quick google - there might be more recent events