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/

What is your main goal?
Being subsidised/helped by the LA like all the LGBTQ++ associations
or
Open a space for lesbians

Appreciate your support and you’re absolutely right, this is exactly where it gets messy. They lean on ‘political’ as cover, but the pattern is clear when lesbian spaces get targeted for simply existing. That’s why we’re pushing back not just for this event, but for the principle behind it.

Thank you fully agreed. The Equality Act is exactly why we’re standing firm. Lesbian women gathering isn’t political activism, it’s basic freedom of association. We’ll definitely be raising this with EHRC they need to see how these decisions are being weaponised.

Appreciate that and yes, the timing speaks for itself. The word ‘lesbian’ flagged it, and suddenly the rules shifted. That’s why we’re calling it out because if nobody pushes back, this keeps happening.

Thank you that’s exactly why we’re speaking up. Decisions like this push lesbians further out of public spaces under the excuse of ‘policy’. It matters that we call it out and stand our ground.

Very fair point and sadly not surprising. We’ll still log it for the record, even if action takes time. The paper trail matters, especially as these patterns keep repeating.

Really helpful, thank you that’s exactly part of what we’re looking into. The rules seem to shift depending who’s applying, so examples like this help show the inconsistency. Appreciate you taking the time to check.

We just want a single space for women to meet without a presence of men.

Just to clarify for everyone: this space is here to centre women their experiences, safety, and voices. That doesn’t mean we’re against anyone else or erasing others. It’s simply about making sure we have spaces where they’re not sidelined. Every group deserves the right to build safe, focused spaces that reflect their own realities.

I find this part of their communication quite sinister:

“Aside from our own findings, we've been alerted separately by others, including the local police licensing team.”

It reads as though they are ensuring you know that multiple “people” are against you - including the local POLICE licensing team. That is worrying…

What is your beef with the council then?
What was it you want from them they said no to?

Your website says

What We Asked For

• • One disused railway arch in Southwark
• • Approx 1000 sq ft, with water and electricity
• • No public funding
• • No public access
• • A private, female-only lesbian space - protected under Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010

That's the bit I don't get, if you don't want public funding, why do you ask stuff from a LA and make a lot of noise when they say no?

Why don't you rent a space and open it, job done?

You're absolutely right that kind of wording is deliberate. It's designed to intimidate by implying that you're already under investigation or scrutiny from multiple fronts, including law enforcement. They’re stacking the narrative to make you feel isolated and outnumbered, even if that's not actually the case. Very manipulative tactic.

You're missing the key point: councils control access to disused public assets. We didn’t ask for money we asked to lease unused property, at market rate, like plenty of other groups do. The issue is discrimination they blocked it because it's for lesbians. If it was a chess club, a brewery, or anything else, it would already be open. That’s why we’re making noise.

I would return and clarify that it is a social event for lesbians and ask why they think it is political sending whatever your official notice or advertising is.

Look into your rights under the Public Sector Equality Duty which also has a positive duty and the Equality Act 2010.

I can't see that they have a leg to stand on honestly. I presume you've indirectly lost money and would flag that.

Ages ago working at a council a community centre with a lease from the council wouldn't let a gay mens support group use the space. That was illegal then and I can't see how this case is any different. It might be worth going directly to council with a complaint of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Added on for public spaces in London you do need permission but all sorts of events or small groups get permission for ad hoc or regular events "Paws in the Park" / particular Windrush Afro Carribbean groups/kiddie groups/LGBTQ plus groups etc so I don't see how that's different than a community centre.

I wonder if it wold be 'political' if a group of TiMs wanted to meet up for a natter? Or would the park authorities put out the bunting and lend them some chairs?

The issue is discrimination they blocked it because it's for lesbians.

Exactly.

And without wishing to maybe mis-speak but what is so odd is the L Community has always been more about providing social networking opportunities for lesbians.

Didn't set out to run campaigns, but has been relentlessly harassed by TRAs who targeted venue where events were to be held, time after time.

And now local councils seem to be joining in.

Given the Supreme Court ruling, although it always was, it is now overtly clear that if lesbians want to be able to meet up with other lesbians (ie based on biological female sex) they are entitled to.

This attack on those rights have been going on for months (years?). Relentless.

Have you made any progress? Any success? It’s so wrong.

I'd be interested to know if the Police have actually made any noise about your event. You will be able to make an FOI request, to see any communication and may have a case against the Police, or else you can prove that the council are dishonest - if the Police actually said nothing.

Oh dear. Isn’t it horrible when you feel excluded just because of who or what you are?

of course, you need to be careful not to block or obstruct the pavement, else you’ll be committing an offence as well. Hate to see the police turn up and move you on.

I’m sorry to hear about the EHRC being overstretched, great not to let that put you off registering this complaint with them though to create a paper trail. It is really important that the EHRC hear about every instance when these captured responses are still happening post-Supreme court clarification.

Maybe also email Bridget Phillipson into your complaint to EHRC as the minister responsible for women and Equalities (and the EHRC itself). also copy in the MP for the local area just so it is firmly lodged in all of their minds as an urgent responsibility to be working on.

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-for-women-and-equalities3

Is "lesbian" in this context mean actual lesbian, or is it code for gender critical?

A court case re the GC org LGBAlliance revealed just 7% of its members are lesbian.

@Christinapple Is "lesbian" in this context mean actual lesbian, or is it code for gender critical?

A court case re the GC org LGBAlliance revealed just 7% of its members are lesbian.

This is an often repeated piece of misinformation by TRAs about the LGB Alliance that approaches defamation, so it's worthwhile debunking it here. (Apologies if it's been done before) The sole source for this a garbled unofficial transcript by Tribunal Tweets of the court proceedings for Allison Bailey vs Stonewall & Garden Court Chambers at the Employment Tribunal.

https://archive.ph/yagyj#selection-583.0-583.15

IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW
KB = Kate Barker, Chief Executive Officer for LGB Alliance

IO: you have a questionnaire - do you ask what category they fall into.
KB: yes
IO: Do you ask if they are a women or man?
KB: yes
IO: Do you specify what a woman is?
KB: no
IO: people could be self-identifying?
KB: yes but unlikely because of what we do
IO: how many q's were send out
KB: 4502
[reception lost]
IO: were all details filled in?
KB: some did and some didn't complete Q
IO: so you sent out 4502 and rec'd 4502 back?
KB: Yes
IO: do you suggest that this shows what the general pop believes?
KB: not a statistician but eg 7% of pop are lesbians and in our Q we had a similar response.
IO: your organisation has no way of knowing what your subscribers believe?
KB: Yes. But we assume that people are being truthful
IO: No further Q's

Barker is asked a question about what the general population believes and she states that, for example, the general population believes that "7% of the population are lesbians". Because the proceeding exchange was lost, the relevance of that statement is unclear as is the meaning of "in our questionnaire we had a similar response". But it plainly does not mean that 7% of the subscribers were lesbian. Nor would that have even proved anything, since the number of gay men, heterosexuals and bisexuals, and non-responses would have also been omitted, to say nothing of the many other permutations of the TQIA+.

The 7% is never raised again in the proceedings, nor is the demographic composition of LGB Alliances subscriptions. Furthermore, in nether the closing submissions nor the decision is an allegation made, let alone proved, that the LGB Alliance is a front for heterosexuals or is not representing homosexuals. In short it's simply a dishonest attempt to twist an unfortunate defect in the transcription into saying something that it clearly does not.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62e1307c8fa8f5649a40110a/Ms_A_Bailey__vs_Stonewall_Equality_Limited_Reserved.pdf

No idea why Chris continues to post such misrepresentations - they know posters on here have the receipts.

Chris lies & lies & lies. He refuses to engage in an honest fashion.

Just a reminder that no one needs to respond to disrupters.

And just a reminder for those that might not understand what a campaign is.

It isn't a social get together, it is for people who think an issue deserves to be improved.

Its a bit like saying when there where big campaigns to get abortion rights men shouldn't have been part of it.

Seriously, just dont feed the trolls.