Sarah Summers wins Single Sex provision for r*pe support in Brighton & Hove

[Lolapusht]

https://x.com/sarahsurviving/status/1949828457518473361?s=61&t=_cKTNp_TyAyzDViEOCJDFQ]]

https://sarahsurviving.substack.com/p/sarah-surviving-and-survivors-network sarahsurviving.substack.com/p/sarah-surviving-and-survivors-network]]]]

Really sorry to hear this @IamSarah - you have been astonishingly brave.

The situation in Brighton also reflects the situation in the Avon and Somerset police area (ie Bristol, North Somerset etc) and I assume other places too https://childrenoftransitioners.org/the-trans-lobby-has-destroyed-provision-for-female-abuse-victims-in-bristol-and-elsewhere-and-will-do-the-same-for-the-victims-bill/

Straight after the SC judgement there were some (clearly reluctant) right noises being made but now organisations, backed by TRA councils/ funders who commission several of the services, are now obfusticating how/ if women can access SS services at all- so the SC judgement is being ignored/ undermined and women continue to self exclude.

It's a totally shit and cruel way to treat female victims of male abuse who just don't have the power or strength to fight for support on top of everything else they are dealing with. The Gov need to take urgent action - but they won't.

The details shared in the joint statement are the legal agreement and that is on public record.

It is soul destroying how desperate the government and PM appear to be to avoid women's rights, equality and access being anything more than a few nice virtue signalling noises on paper and in speechwaffle.

The public statement gives no timescale.

Were you under the impression the ss provision would be up and running in three months?

What was signed by you/the rape crisis centre before the statement? What correspondence did you have with the sols to explain the terms of the agreement reached & if no agreement was given to you to sign, why on earth not? What is your understanding of the agreement reached between your sols & the other side’s sols? You were the client, it’s on your instructions the agreement can be made - the sols don’t tell you what to do. They can give you advice, asses risks/prospects of success, but you’re the client who decides if you’ll accept what’s offered or not.

You’ve raised over £100k & said that still didn’t cover all the sols fees. What on earth did that cover, if not an air tight legally enforceable agreement to convince you to drop the case? You had a court date for Sept ‘25, and gave that up on the basis the agreement was worth it, yet you’ve no idea if it’s enforceable?

I think you urgently need to speak to your solicitor & ask them to clearly spell out what was signed by you/RCC, what part of that made it enforceable & if that’s not been nailed down, you’ve surely got a case against the sols for professional negligence? How on earth can they take fees of over £100k & just drop the court action off the back of the RCC saying they’ll do what was in the statement, and not get that nailed down?

A lot of women have given money they can barely afford, to support you, and if there’s sols who have taken that amount of money to represent your interests in this case, when you had a court date only last month, and concluded that on your behalf with zero enforcement options? Then I think you absolutely need to contact the regulator and lodge a complaint - before asking for any more money from anyone.

£100k+ is a huge amount of money to take & then not conclude the case properly. The lack of transparency around crowd funded cases is an issue beyond this case, but in this case, it’s raising a lot of red flags. I hope you take up whatever options you have to look at the conduct of the sols you’ve authorised payment over £100k to, before you ask women to shell out more money. If they are negligent, or have given you bad advice, or failed to conclude this properly, you should look to them 1st to resolve this before any more women are asked to line the pockets of sols who appear to have failed to conclude this case appropriately.

Really valid questions @GrumpyMenopausalWombWielderand I can answer them all - just not on a public message forum. It is really frustrating but I can only share what I can.

Even if you’ve signed an NDA or something though, @IamSarah, you must be able to say yes or no to the part about asking women for more money?

How come?

I can confirm I won’t be asking for any further support with legal fees.

Extremely fair and valid points @GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder something does not add up here.

You know what you agreed to @IamSarah to stop the case proceeding to Court, you know the enforcable or not nature of it.

All the many people who gave money for this case deserve at the very least full transparency regarding where their funding went and what was achieved.

I think it's rather unfair to be continually asking @IamSarah about this, right this moment. She has already said she will update with what she can, when she can.

And yes, I donated to her Crowdfunder, also.

Absolutely and I find it really strange to put pressure on Sarah.

She is the victim.

The oppressors or villains are Survivors Network.

Start asking them questions.

Ask the local police who were said to be part of supporting the new service what is going on.

Sarah isn't the one has broken an agreement.

And if it turns out she has been given wrong legal advice (which sadly can happen to people) blame those giving the advice.

for Sarah

Particularly as @IamSarah only put it up on X yesterday!

Hardly time to contact her solicitors, find out what any legal restrictions are, or any other conditions, then report back here (which she has no obligation to do)

Plus dealing with the distress of finding out (yet again) that Survivors Network are apparently a load of lying shits!

Have some compassion, please.

Am I right in thinking that the same legal representation for the Network are also involved in the move to take the SC judgment to the ECtHR? I wonder what conclusions the Network may have drawn.

I hope you're doing ok @IamSarah - this must be tough for you.
I went on SN's website tonight and looked at their E&D policy. Sex is listed in intro but quelle surprise, it doesn't feature at all under the We Will statement - am presuming they didn't even bother to pay lip service to update that policy - it dates to June 2025

https://survivorsnetwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Equality-and-Diversity-Policy.pdf

"We centre survivors in everything we do". Interesting that that's the first point on their Equality Diversity policy but they clearly don't.

Thanks @SigourneyHoward Yes, their E&D policy says "sex and sexual orientation" separately from "gender reassignment" in its list at the start. For example the section "Our commintment as a service provider" lists all nine protected characteristsics correctly:
Providing services to which all clients are entitled regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation

But in the specific "Equal opportunity policy statements" it only has eight headings instead of the Equality Act 2010's nine protected characteristics. It has doesn't have Sex or Gender Reassignment - instead it just has Gender. If you blinked you might assume they mean sex but they don't.

Gender
We will:
• Challenge discriminatory assumptions about gender
• Take positive action to redress the negative effects of discrimination against everyone
• Offer equal access for everyone to representation, services, employment, training and pay and encourage other charities to do the same and
• Provide support to prevent discrimination against transgender people who have or who are about to undergo gender reassignment

So they still seem to feel free to confuse (biological) sex with gender identity in their employment practices, whatever happens (or doesn't happen) in their service provision.

Woah! This is unfair. Sarah has said she will update when she can. She found out about this at the weekend and I would be surprised if she's had time to talk to her solicitors yet.

Sensibly, it would appear she is taking time to talk to her solicitors and understand the situation correctly before sharing details on the internet.

Your post has some decent questions but at the same time it is also full of assumptions and implied accusations and puts pressure on Sarah at what must be a difficult time. Whose side are you on, exactly?

Please have some patience and compassion and trust that Sarah will update us all when she can.

Following on from my last post, I have received a reply from Sussex PCC Correspondence Officer. It took them less than 24 hours to respond to my queries and have generated a case number).

To summarise:
*The PCC has made available the necessary funding to establish a women-only service for victims and survivors of sexual violence.
*Both the Commissioner and Survivors Network are fully committed to implementing this vital service.
*The PCC have commissioned an independent organisation to complete a comprehensive Sexual Violence Needs Assessment (SVNA).
*SVNA - consulting with existing sexual violence support services and survivors.
*AVNA is due to be finalised by the end of October.

Ending the email with this:
"Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the legal definition of a woman, which was based on biological sex. The Police and Crime Commissioner’s duty is to fund and provide inclusive services for all victims and witnesses of crime. The upcoming guidance from His Majesty's Government regarding this ruling and the needs assessment will also play a key role in shaping the final service specification."

[email protected] is the email they responded to, not the one I put in my earlier post.

Waiting to hear back from SN.

Brilliant!

or

@IwantToRetire I'll take the cake; thanks 🙂

Okay, but it wont be baked by me, as that would be a punishment.

Please imagine the most luxurious cake on sale and imagine what it would taste like if this was IRL!