EHRC to ‘ignore 50%’ of trans consultation responses, claim Good Law Project

[IwantToRetire]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good headline.

The article quotes the "leak" and what it says is something different:

The alleged leaked messages

“Just wanted to let you know that EHRC is only analysing 50% of code consultation responses from organisations because it is overwhelmed by volume and board wants redraft by 18 August.”

“This approach may mean we do not capture insightful but singly /infrequently made points but there is no way that we could action 50,000 individual points in any case (it’s simply impractical and the Code would end up being enormously long if we tried to).”

From https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ehrc-ignore-50-trans-consultation-113754867.html

If the leak is true and means anything I read it as saying they are prioritising responses from individuals. Nothing to do with being trans.

Although seeing at how the Good Law Project is getting to worked up, maybe it is because they tried to get trans groups (ie 2 men and a dog with a flashy web site) to response thinking that groups would be given more status.

They’ve been wanging on for days about this on Reddit, especially the AI element. I don’t know why they’re so sure it won’t prioritise their views like City of London Corporation did and lots of other consultations. What the EHRC can’t do is throw out the SC judgment or dismiss it as irrelevant which is of course what they would like.

The EHRC under the their new 'middle manager', as MAS was rather scathingly called, just has to accept that everything they do will be interpreted as anti-trans, so they should factor it in, cowboy up, and get on with it what they believe to be the right thing to do, regardless.

They shouldn't appease any side, as a matter of principle, but even if they were minded to, they could never appease the likes of the GLP anyway, nothing would ever be pro-trans enough for them.

Exactly.

One of the reasons I post links to stories like this is because of how many papers and other news outlets are willing or actively wanting to print articles that imply the Supreme Court ruling is wrong and has no support.

Here's another one Labour MPs push back against trans ruling
https://archive.is/cUlJl

For all we know any number of actual women's groups, as opposed to someone claiming to be a group because they have a web site, or individual commentators have tried to get articles published about how women's rights have been restored by this ruling. And is widely welcomed.

“This wasn’t a consultation, it was a joke”

Well whatever tickles your fancy

I always have a giggle when I hear the name Good Law Project

I analysed the last government’s analysis of their 17,589 responses for the ‘call for evidence’ on toilets last time. 67% of responses quoted the same Stonewall reference. It completely skewed the results so you got weird results like only 2% of people supporting ‘disabled’ (accessible) toilets.

It’s very difficult as my medical and scientific evidence on safety and health was ignored in the published analysis last time. A charity was ignored too that was making similar points. I was gutted but it made me get further evidence on why certain single sex toilets designs are safest and healthier to use for everyone. But they have to be single sex.

Hopefully my examples and data will be looked at this time. I have been very specific. I know what will happen as I have seen it play out over the years when toilet designs have changed. I have been looking at this long enough to show the patterns that emerge.

Does GLP understand the difference between Statutory Guidance consultation and voting on Strictly Come Dancing?

they are prioritising responses from individuals

Aw, does this mean GLP's official response will get ignored? Joly used his best crayons and everything

Does he understand that no amount of guidance will actually change the law?

What am I saying? - Of course he does. He just likes to PRETEND he doesn't.

How this mediocre man and woefully unsuccessful lawyer is able to keep this grift going is unbelievable. I suppose when you create a moral panic amongst a section of society who are necessarily vulnerable, you can then milk them for life by continuing to tell them they’re in danger and you are their saviour. He’s utterly despicable.

Have a look on Reddit. They really believe he will save the day.

I don’t think I can face Reddit this early, but that doesn’t surprise me, it’s who funds him.

They genuinely seem to think they're at terrible risk of suicide, violence and even genocide. Where the hell does that even come from?

TRAs on social media overall are a group of self absorbed, frequently mentally unstable people with zero interest in anyone else’s rights, (and some are much more suggestible and vulnerable than others) addicted to an extremely online victim/oppression/warrior fantasy, and bound by groupthink. And the malicious actors who benefit from and get gratification from winding them up.

From people like him, he’s created this issue in his own home and to make himself feel better he’s bringing others along with him. He’s an absolute disgrace.