EHRC guidance might be delayed for over a year

[OhBuggerandArse]

Ministers really can't cope with acknowledging the law, can they?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d7cd9e2f-2635-409d-a624-a833611a09fc?shareToken=f3f89ea86fb5c264c18866395c93194d

I hope this is just a flag they're sending up to evaluate how much pushback there might be - let's make sure that the pushback is noisy, articulate and effective.

Most companies do not need to install any additional facilities, they just need to label them correctly. At most, one additional single 'neutral' occupancy facility would suffice.

It depends on the circumstances. If they encourage men to use female spaces despite the law, I would consider them responsible yes. If they know someone is a man because he’s “transitioned” while he’s been using the service, I expect them to tell him to use the correct facility, absolutely.

Would choosing not to enforce their policies count as encouragement?

Toilets are ‘gendered bathrooms’ - I think not. There is a reason urinals are in the men’s and not the women’s loos and it’s got little to do with ‘gender’ and far more to do with being able to stand and pee because of their biological sex.

It depends what you mean by “enforce”. Why not spell out exactly what you mean, then I will answer you.

Do these muppets ignore other Supreme Court rulings ?

Do they only stop at red traffic lights if the police are there ?

They said: “This is a long and legally complex document and we are carefully considering it – and we make no apology for it. It would be catastrophic for single sex-services to follow guidance that wasn’t legally sound and then place them in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital we get this right.

This could actually be a good thing because, once they approve it, there's no going back. They have been thorough and they have got it right. It's just a waiting game imo.

This really is where to go next.

If law is optional, just a matter of personal agreement, there's a lot of laws I'd happily stop bothering with. Taxation for a start.

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1985744729254826099?t=IUUyuHqM6e9j2RvrqjKHig&s=19

The Labour government has been accused by gender-critical groups of slow-walking guidance for schools and businesses following the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman.

LGB Labour and Lesbian Labour both accused the government of adding “additional hurdles into the path of the much-awaited guidance” and warned further delay to the implementation of the Supreme Court’s ruling could result in “expensive litigation and reputational damage for the government and its departments”.

Article in full at https://labourlist.org/2025/11/labour-ehrc-trans-guidance-supreme-court/

I mean that they take appropriate action if someone enters a space contra their policies so that transgressions against the policies do not become routine and the policies lose all meaning as a result.

That's an even more vague answer than the last. 🤣

It's good to know, hopefully it will send a message to the 'trans'maidens in the Labour that they're not the sole voice of the Labour Party.

I hope there will be a question about this at PMQs tomorrow.

I'm not experienced with managing customer behaviour, apologies.
I'll try anther way.
If an organisation you frequented had an appropriate policy, took no action after transgressions occurred such that the transgressions became so common that the policy may as well not exist and you witnessed one of these transgressions and it upset you, would you take them to court?

If you had a no indoor smoking policy (and its illegal)
would not enforcing it
make the law go away ?

I’m not sure you’re grasping what the issue is here, it’s not about “witnessing transgressions” and being upset by them, it’s being subject to the sexual harassment of having a man in a space which women use for our privacy and dignity, and also being subjected to greater risk of sexual assault or other violence.

Seem to remember these whatabouterries coming up on other threads.

So could be said they dont need to be answered on a thread about guidances delayed

IMO

What happens is, you have a policy, and you know it’s being infringed but you don’t care to investigate further, then you have a few complaints, word gets round, custom drops off, you get a reputation for being a dodgy business, people avoid your business, because if you don’t care about this law, what else don’t you care about? Fire regulations? Health and safety? the police investigate any reported assaults, harrasments or voyeurism, and if your business needs a licence to operate (alcohol or live music etc) it becomes difficult in many more ways.

it’s a bit like underage alcohol sales.

Anyone want to speculate on the impact of 'Rose' Henderson and his holey boxers hitting the headlines vis a vis the guidelines?

Bless him.

I'd think one of the half baked plans to avoid women's rights existing more than on paper is to just go on ignoring it in the hope that 'transgressions' become so normal and frequent that squatters rights kick in. Its more or less what RH argued in court today. It's not honest, it's not true, but this isn't an activist movement known for its ethics, morals or honesty.

The thing is that if, for example, you don't comply with fire regs, or permit indoor smoking, and people have nodded and smiled for a year or two, when someone turns up who will take you to court, you'll be fucked. Because you knew the law, and the fact that 'nobody minded until now' just means you got away with it when you shouldn't have done.

I'll look forward to a question in the HoC tomorrow and yet more thumbs up bums and warbling about it being very very important to do fuck all for as long as possible.

The trouble with doing fuck all for as long as possible while loudly claiming that the law is too difficult and too complicated and too uncaring and too expensive... is that it is undermining respect for the Equality Act 2010. And when that goes we are all fucked. Not even just women as women, but everyone who ever needs protection for any and all of the different protected characteristics. Letting this drag on is reputational damage for the government, yes, and for equality law.

Yes, I also think this. It’s basically what has happened up to the SC judgment.

The questions in the House of Lords this morning from 11am include one on the EHRC Code of Practice. Will be live on Parliament TV.

Do you have a link to what was asked by any chance?