Brigitte Phillipson blocking EHRC guidance

[lcakethereforeIam]

I'm not sure if there's anything new here though

Phillipson blocks trans guidance after landmark Supreme Court ruling https://share.google/P91PBE5Cy4ROwsdA1

It's a very stark article in the Telegraph.

Against my own better judgment, I held my nose and voted Labour (would have spoiled my ballot), because everyone around me said we needed to get the Tories out. I so regret that. At least with the Tories they told you they were going to fuck you over before they fucked you over. This lot are so two-faced it’s a wonder their heads don’t swivel right off.

In my letter to my MP about this, I explained that I first voted Labour in 1979 and have done so ever since. I was brought up in a small business-owning, Conservative-voting household. My rationale for voting Labour was that policy-making should begin with people, not profit. However, my disenchantment with Labour has prompted me to think about what I feel matters to me politically and how I have led my life so far. Really, I should be voting Conservative (small state, self-reliance, personal freedom, individuality, paying your way, saving and building up wealth) although that would be a waste of time in my constituency, which if Labour loses in 2029 will likely go Green.

Typo

I honestly think this is the worst government of my lifetime. At least with Liz Truss, she was got rid of quickly (quick enough that I guarantee there will be revisionist histories asking what if she'd got to implement her plans), but this lot are Liz Truss in slow motion.

Starmer made a huge deal about being the ethical PM who would lead a rules-based government, and the freebies are the least of the problems here. They welcome a Supreme Court judgement and then spend months refusing to implement it, and looking for ways to gut it. They have contempt for Parliament, so David Lammy doesn't even bother to turn up for urgent questions, but sends an underling to take the heat. They lie on a scale that makes Boris Johnson look honest by comparison.

That's just on the ethical pretensions. It's not even touching on policy.

And, if leaks are to go by, they still think this is a comms problem that can be sorted out with better narrative management.

I know Labour supporters have a (maybe unique, I don't know any other political tribe who do this) tendency to invest the party with a soul, and don't want to give up hope that it might get back to its roots. And there are others who are almost ready to give up on Labour but are so terrified of "the right" that they'll cling to it in the absence of a left wing alternative.

I take a very simple view. Zero seats is the strategy. We can't rely on Labour rediscovering its better nature. It might theoretically change course, but only if the voters teach it a lesson it will never forget.

I'm really at a complete loss here, I honestly cannot understand Phillipson's motivation here. They know perfectly well that this subject is a massive turn off for the majority of the public.

Why is she parroting GLP lies? The information is out in the wild, people know it's garbage. She's decided to give false advice, contrary to the law and for what?

She ought to be made liable personally for the legal costs of the inevitable law suit.

Im starting to think that they WANT oblivion, perhaps to be a perpetual opposition group.

As I remember, there have always been a lot of people in the Labour party who don't really enjoy being in government and particularly not the responsibility that comes with it. My own active involvement came to an end around the Blair and Brown years so it was a long time ago but, if my memory is correct, the party leadership didn't pay those people much attention. What I find bizarre is how Starmer and his Cabinet can have such a large majority yet be running so scared of upsetting backbenchers.

Presumably the government is fearful of a vote of no confidence if the backbenchers get so enraged they go for a scorched earth strategy and are prepared to risk losing their jobs.

Also to partly answer my own question, I can't remember any serious challenge to Blair's leadership. There were more doubts about Brown but I can't remember any open rebellion. I'm going from memory and it was a long time ago so feel free to correct me on that. It feels unprecedented for a leader with such a large majority to be facing such open rebellion,

And for what it's worth, given that Starmer's chief contenders for party leadership were Rebecca Long Bailey and Lisa Nandy, I was relieved that he won and I still am.

Excellent article by Jo Bartosch. Sorry if it's been posted already.
www.spiked-online.com/2025/12/19/bridget-phillipson-is-putting-trans-activism-above-the-law/?fbclid=Iwb21leAOzqHdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR62nGQ9U-XSFTM_V6bkECDs-T-J3EFqR-p_zFQXiA6Mxhl17kAq-mfk1c-hUg_aem_Au4pJQpIN85dp4G_1cWb4g

for what it’s worth the telegraph have spun quite a yarn there.

the times article on this is less detailed but gives an entirely different picture

I wouldn't have called it an entirely different picture but maybe I should read them both again?

So far I've put the differences down to the Telegraph having access to 'ún-named sources' that The Times haven't been able to speak to. They (Telegraph) were certainly confident enough to make it their front page story and run an editorial on the topic. But I'll go and read again.

Not if it's RADAR locked, unless she just happens to have already bought a key.

@Keeptoiletssafe re wanting to send your safety data to the judge.

That's not how amicus curia interventions work. You have to be an organisation that represents a group of people affected by the case, then engage a legal team, and apply for permission to intervene. There's deadlines and stuff.

You might consider approaching an existing intervenor, if there is one.

I have read both versions and am left believing they are telling the same story, the Telegraph with the addition of a source not cited by The Times. The Times also has a leader, which homes in on BP's judgement and the obstruction of the law. What I want to know is what former DPP Sir Keir has to say.

Reading the quotes from BP herself, they are v sensible

it’s Claire C who has said she’s not.

and unnamed source could be anyone on either side

Either way, if you’ve a Labour mp, now would be the time to write to them

Thanks for summing it up. It is ridiculous. I recall Starmer and his pre GE pledges on this plus post SC ruling.

Perhaps the left of the party are mobilising for a leadership bid and this is part of it, get in with the potential mob.

I do, if she was obeying the law. Abortion is a tough decision for most women, that's why we have the exclusion zones, but if the protestor was outside the exclusion zone then she had the right to pray.

It's hard to decide which aspect of this saga is the most worrying. Thanks to the government and Bridget Phillipson, thousands of organisations are breaking the law, and have been for nine months.

Of which there are numerous similar real-world cases to draw from as exemplars.

That Canadian bloke, Jonathan "wax my balls" Yaniv, springs to mind.

How did you get those font characters?

Perhaps the left of the party are mobilising for a leadership bid and this is part of it.
Entirely possible.

I'll PM you.

Why wouldn't KB still be leader? Thatcher was leader for 15 years.

I wouldn't want my DD in the gents.

The Supreme Court is absolute so it has to be followed though. It included that “trans people” (what ever that means) should be treated with respect too, (which implies 3rd spaces?)

The updated PSHE guidance impact assessment was interesting. It linked to Cass and included the FWS judgement in this paragraph:

In the section of the guidance dealing with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
content, the content on gender reassignment reflects the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of For Women Scotland on the interpretation of the Equality Act. It explains
that teaching should recognise that people have legal rights by virtue of their biological
sex, which are different from the rights of those of the opposite sex who have undergone
gender reassignment. Pupils should also be taught to recognise that people with the
protected characteristic of gender reassignment, as with the other protected
characteristics, have protection from discrimination and should be treated with respect and
dignity.
The new content also recognises that, beyond the law and facts about gender
reassignment and biological sex, there is significant public debate in this area and advises
that schools should not endorse any particular view and should avoid language and
activities which repeat or enforce gender stereotypes.

the whole document also includes homophobia a few times but never transphobia, noting that teachers must ensure gender stereotyping does not occur.

Big letter apartheid rears its head again on MN. 😞