Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4

666 replies

ickky · 24/10/2025 09:14

The Tribunal has now finished and we await the judgement.

Abbreviations:

C or MK - Claimant, Maria Kelly
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for C
KW - Katy Wedderburn, solicitor for C
R or L - Respondent. Leonardo UK
ST - Susanne Tanner KC, barrister for R
J - Judge
P - Panel member
GC - gender critical
GI - gender identity
AL - Andrew R Letton VP People Shared Services Leonardo - respondent witness

Tribunal Tweets coverage here

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd

Thread 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5416903-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-29th-september-10am?page=1

Thread 2 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5420656-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-2

Thread 3
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5421183-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-3

Kelly vs Leonardo UK Ltd

Tribunal will consider workplace toilet provision

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
NoBinturongsHereMate · 07/12/2025 23:06

Or they may be circular urinals.

thirdfiddle · 07/12/2025 23:09

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 07/12/2025 23:01

The three flower like structures (two complete circles and one half circle) along the center line of the gents may be circular basins where six people can use the facility at the same time

My first thought was those basins like in one of the Harry Potter films. But then what would the two basins shut behind a door be for?

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 07/12/2025 23:15

NoBinturongsHereMate · 07/12/2025 23:06

Or they may be circular urinals.

I stand corrected - circular urinals it likely is

Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4
Keeptoiletssafe · 07/12/2025 23:59

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 07/12/2025 23:01

The three flower like structures (two complete circles and one half circle) along the center line of the gents may be circular basins where six people can use the facility at the same time

No, I think it’s like this beautiful one:

https://thecoracle.com/public-toilets-rothesay-bute-scotland/

Note the women didn’t get toilets til the 1990s. Nearly 100 years later than the men I think.

Rothesay victorian public toilets

The Coracle explores the beautiful world of Victorian public toilets

https://thecoracle.com/public-toilets-rothesay-bute-scotland/

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/12/2025 00:00

Apologies - I was too slow looking through my files 😅

Peregrina · 08/12/2025 07:55

They say that the 700 public conveniences which have closed have been repurposed. They don't say how many Ladies/Gents have been turned into unisex while still keeping urinals.

So we are back where we started it seems.

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/12/2025 13:17

There’s quite a lot of information about public toilets closing and why. It boils down to safety concerns and economics of repairing and cleaning up misuse.

The Sexual Offences Act did not stop people having sex in toilets. In fact, toilets still get a reputation and people still organise online to meet there which causes toilets to be shut down for ‘lewd’ behaviour. Even in 2008 The Provision of Public Toilets this was noted. It was also noted that ‘loos of the year’ still get targeted for sex. So do plane toilets, which is the only incident (but not in UK) I know of a woman charged with sexual offence (teacher with a pupil on a school trip). You have to really research a lot to find that though. Most incidents are of men abusing children and women in plane toilets. The Act didn’t stop voyeurism either and now we have hidden cameras, enclosing toilets to stop voyeurism is useless. In 2008, there was much debate about private unisex toilets but it was recognised it was not advantageous for women.

I believe the answer is to make toilets more open but have gaps that are around a kitchen kickboard height at the floor-door and the partitions/door be around 2m tall, then space to the ceiling. Tall ceilings are good. Natural light is good so you are not reliant on arrival lights if the electricity goes off. We should be having proper experiments to analyse the optimum design.

The two transactivist Americans that have been championing the rise of private gender neutral toilets and calling it a social justice movement have backgrounds in studying cruising in men’s public toilets and queer studies. There’s not a female insight. Some of their earlier papers are eye-opening. They have not done any health and safety assessments that I know of, and (as of April 2024 when he admitted it) no analysis on the toilets they have put in schools or public buildings.

In the U.K. recently there are some women at universities that have been looking at toilets but they are not from a scientific, architectural or medical background. They wrote a paper on women’s safety in toilets but it was for transwomen, they didn’t look at biological women and their physical safety. The same group joined a letter writing campaign with Stonewall for document T. There was a lot of people going on about safety, and 2/3 quoting a report Stonewall did where, looking at it completely objectively, a man got shouted at then pushed out of the ladies by two women. There’s no realisation about the design consequences of making toilets unisex/gender-neutral/universal even though there were so many promoting them.

Going back to this case, in absolute terms of health and safety, of course single sex toilet designs are going to be healthier and safer than unisex, especially for women. For exactly the same reasons (enclosed, mix-sex), it is why I have found disabled toilets are the locations of misuse, assaults and deaths.

The judge has brought aspects of health and safety up in her judgement so the appeal can mention this. There are times when we have to have unisex toilets but, as Doc T says, only after the regs for single sex toilets have been satisfied.

Also note I am being more NC and using correct men and women definitions in the above. That’s common sense too when talking about toilets as the behaviour is so dependent on what sex you are.

SwirlyGates · 08/12/2025 14:07

@Keeptoiletssafe abuse in plane toilets? They're the size of a toenail! I'm not disbelieving what you say, but these people must be either small or bendy, or both. Confused

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/12/2025 14:10

Not my idea of fun. It made me laugh as it was in the opening scene of Daddy Issues too and Rivals. Can’t get away from toilets!

Keeptoiletssafe · 08/12/2025 15:38

Also, remember that I am not trying to spoil fun but in any set of toilets or changing rooms, if the design is private enough for sex then it’s private enough for sexual assault.

At the same time as this case and Sandy Peggy’s case, we have the Sarah Everard inquiry saying we urgently need much more (any) knowledge about the location of assaults so we can prevent them in future.

Health and Safety should be paramount. Single sex spaces and within the spaces private for that sex, individual spaces that are not totally hidden.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 09/12/2025 13:19

Possibly of interest: Employment Appeal Tribunal decision published October 2025: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68ed00b8a8398380cb4acfcd/DBP_v_Scottish_Ambulance_Service__2025__EAT_147.pdf

Referring to Employment Judge Sutherland:

"...while in no way doubting the professionalism of the judge, I consider that the matter should be remitted to a different tribunal. I bear in mind that I have concluded that the judge’s approach was plainly wrong and that she has now refused the application for permanent anonymity on three occasions."

NoBinturongsHereMate · 09/12/2025 14:04

That does sound a bit like 'doubting professionalism'.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 09/12/2025 14:39

removed to fact check

KitWyn · 09/12/2025 14:39

I understand why it is so difficult to sack judges, judicial independence is vital. But so is judicial competence.

At this point I consider first-tier employment judge rulings on women-only-spaces as an initial opportunity for virtue signalling by 'nice'-but-dim upper/middle class twits. And then it will inevitably be lost on appeal to much cleverer & more-senior judges.

If a judge's decision is overturned it should be treated like a junior doctor's error, as a very important learning opportunity. At the very least a junior judge should be required to review the appeal decision in detail and then have a short session with one of the lead appeal judges to discuss his or her failings.

There should be greater consequences for serious failings by judges.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 09/12/2025 14:50

Re-posting after fact-checking:

Interesting article on judicial accountability, with discussion of the role played by Barry Clarke, ET (Eng & Wales) President, who I think made the decision in the case I posted above. https://davidhencke.com/2025/09/15/the-black-hole-of-accountability-employment-judges-block-evidence-in-their-own-misconduct-cases/

Judge Barry Clarke is both President of Employment Tribunal (England and Wales, and is a Visiting Judge in the Scotland Appeal Tribunal.

The Black Hole of Accountability: Employment Judges Block Evidence in Their Own Misconduct Cases

Judge Barry Clarke who is president of employment tribunals in England and Wales The English and Welsh Employment Tribunal system is operating under an extraordinary contradiction that strikes at t…

https://davidhencke.com/2025/09/15/the-black-hole-of-accountability-employment-judges-block-evidence-in-their-own-misconduct-cases/

JoyintheMorning · 09/12/2025 15:08

@SlackJawedDisbeliefXY is right I think, we had circular washing basins in a factory, these had a foot control for water instead of a hand operated tap.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/12/2025 16:13

KitWyn · 09/12/2025 14:39

I understand why it is so difficult to sack judges, judicial independence is vital. But so is judicial competence.

At this point I consider first-tier employment judge rulings on women-only-spaces as an initial opportunity for virtue signalling by 'nice'-but-dim upper/middle class twits. And then it will inevitably be lost on appeal to much cleverer & more-senior judges.

If a judge's decision is overturned it should be treated like a junior doctor's error, as a very important learning opportunity. At the very least a junior judge should be required to review the appeal decision in detail and then have a short session with one of the lead appeal judges to discuss his or her failings.

There should be greater consequences for serious failings by judges.

Agree, like that terrible Sheffield hospital one.

Legobricksinatub · 09/12/2025 17:14

The asylum courts also seem to have activist judges. It seems judges are chosen from lawyers with interest and experience in that area, and they have interest and get experience in that area by working for organisations lobbying/promoting immigration. Meaning there is an inherent bias in the appointment of judges.

Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 21:31

The Judge said:
Has R complied with Regulation 20 of the 1992 Regs?

236.The claimant submitted that cubicles with gaps did not constitute a separate room under the 1992 Regs. The respondent did not submit that their cubicles with gaps constituted rooms or provided adequate privacy.
237. If a separate toilet block is provided for men and women, Reg 20(2) does not require separate toilet cubicles for each user. If a separate toilet block is not provided, Reg 20(2) requires each convenience to be in a separate lockable room. The relevant ACOP states: "196.
Facilities should be arranged to
ensure adequate privacy for the user. In particular: each toilet should be in a separate room or cubicle, with a door that can be secured from the inside".
Accordingly, cubicles with gaps (which may allow for more hygienic cleaning), may, depending upon the circumstances, provide adequate bodily privacy for each user and moral propriety between the sexes if no urinals are provided.

Still keep coming back to these points 😮😮
So is Judge is saying we can have single sex communal loos with no privacy at all and cubicles with gaps are fine for mixed sex toilets? Said no building standards or legislation ever. As the claimants noted, and the respondent didn’t dispute, these cubicles with gaps are within a room. Even the building standards at the time said cubicles with gaps or without gaps were cubicles within rooms.

The answer to the Judges question is NO - Leonardo has not complied with the legislation that states 20.2(c) separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.

Bluebootsgreenboots · 09/12/2025 21:48

Also, if the condition for that (enough privacy if there are cubicles within an enclosed room) to apply is that there are no urinals, surely that means that men can come in to the women's but women can't go in to the men's - they're single sex by default as they have urinals.
Are we going to have to install female only open multiple user, no partition troughs, which
I saw everywhere in China many moons ago, to keep the men out??!!
ETA - replying to @Keeptoiletssafe

NebulousSupportPostcard · 09/12/2025 22:05

Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 21:31

The Judge said:
Has R complied with Regulation 20 of the 1992 Regs?

236.The claimant submitted that cubicles with gaps did not constitute a separate room under the 1992 Regs. The respondent did not submit that their cubicles with gaps constituted rooms or provided adequate privacy.
237. If a separate toilet block is provided for men and women, Reg 20(2) does not require separate toilet cubicles for each user. If a separate toilet block is not provided, Reg 20(2) requires each convenience to be in a separate lockable room. The relevant ACOP states: "196.
Facilities should be arranged to
ensure adequate privacy for the user. In particular: each toilet should be in a separate room or cubicle, with a door that can be secured from the inside".
Accordingly, cubicles with gaps (which may allow for more hygienic cleaning), may, depending upon the circumstances, provide adequate bodily privacy for each user and moral propriety between the sexes if no urinals are provided.

Still keep coming back to these points 😮😮
So is Judge is saying we can have single sex communal loos with no privacy at all and cubicles with gaps are fine for mixed sex toilets? Said no building standards or legislation ever. As the claimants noted, and the respondent didn’t dispute, these cubicles with gaps are within a room. Even the building standards at the time said cubicles with gaps or without gaps were cubicles within rooms.

The answer to the Judges question is NO - Leonardo has not complied with the legislation that states 20.2(c) separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.

When I first read this, it brought memories of a night out at a local pub decades ago, when we heard screaming and hysteria from the ladies loos. When we went in outselves, there was a row of cubicles with the doors missing, and although there was a notice directing people to an alternative set of toilets, loads of women were so drunk and desperate to wee that they were just sitting in a row getting on with it.

Obviously the outer door should have been locked, and it was sorted in good humour, but my mind boggles that J Sutherland apparently didn't think too hard or visualise the scenario she was setting down in writing.

Presumably cubicles aren't needed for men using urinals, but how far does her thinking extend. Could several buckets suffice, within each room? When those TRAs protested with bottles of urine, was Judge Sutherland calculating how much smaller the bottles could be for biological women?

SexRealismBeliefs · 09/12/2025 22:08

So I got a bit dragged in by a puppy over on the Peggie case.

I am just taking a wee gander at the appealable points.

The judgment says at 312

The 1992 Regs do not distinguish between a man and a woman’s human right to bodily privacy. The requirement for separate facilities is for moral propriety between the sexes i.e. of both sexes relative to each other. Both women and men have privacy needs when using the toilet. [Moral propriety is shoe horned in here. It has nothing to do with Reg 20]

The 1992 Regs do not give any primacy to a woman’s bodily privacy over a man’s. A woman in the female toilets would be using a toilet within a cubicle but a man in the male toilets might be using a urinal rather than a cubicle and the presence of a trans man may have greater impact on their privacy.

It cannot reasonably be said the presence of a trans woman in the female toilets would cause a greater violation of a woman’s bodily privacy than the presence of a trans man in the male toilets would cause to a man’s bodily privacy. There was no basis for concluding that the toilets were less suitable for a woman than a man.

Yes a trans identified male, i.e. a biological man does have a greater impact upon a woman. The reasons for this are many.

The Judge bangs on a fair bit about how the cubicles are private but sinks can be mixed sex.

My view is this an appealable point as men do not require the level of privacy women do.

Consider men actually use public urinals. There is no equivalent for women.

Women need privacy from men while washing their hands while using the toilet or in the general space of the toilet room. Womens bodies and functions are markedly different to mens.

Men use the loos mostly to pee, otherwise to poop. Its a binary use. Any other use isn't suitable for work.

Women at work will be managing menstruation, bleeding during pregnacy, concerns re managing a miscarriage, pregnancy related vomiting and hyper emesis, maternity related issues including management of post birth bleeding, re-dressing ceaserean scars, expressing milk, managing breast engorgement when returning to work while still breastfeeding, age related menopausal flooding. In many of these cases women need privacy to change their clothes and need privacy to navigate between toilets and sinks.

If women use menstrual cups, empting in toilet and rinsing in the sink is common.

Statistically women are more likely to urinary tract infections (UTIs) due to anatomy, leading to frequent urination and discomfort. thenewfeminist.co.uk.

The Workplace Regs ensure that sanitary disposal in stalls but they didn't consider impact of moon cups/ re-usable sanitary wear. Sinks are required for this use.

This is why women suffer direct disrcrimination if bio men are allowed to use the ladies, compared to bio women using the mens. And why the sinks need to be included in the envelope of the toilet space as they are essential to women's privacy.

Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 22:13

Well a few more photos for my phone. Marvellous ‘memories’ I get played when my phone throws me a roll.

It appears we need the Chinese trough so the Judge will allows us to keep the men out!

Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4
Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4
Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 22:21

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l24.pdf

This is the HSE document the Judge got her info from by the way. Nothing correlates with her points.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l24.pdf

SexRealismBeliefs · 09/12/2025 22:21

Keeptoiletssafe · 09/12/2025 22:13

Well a few more photos for my phone. Marvellous ‘memories’ I get played when my phone throws me a roll.

It appears we need the Chinese trough so the Judge will allows us to keep the men out!

She would say thats the same as a urinal so no disadvantage compared to men.

When you're captured you're captured!