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.

If you can access Sonia Sodha on Twitter I think she’s referenced it in the last couple of days.

You won't go far wrong in predicting Starmer's actions if you just assume he's an AI programmed to do what the blob wants him do to.

Which was predictable with him being a former DPP. Labour loved to spin that as if he was a badass prosecutor personally sending terrorists to prison. No, the DPP is the Permanent Secretary of a small government department, who spends most of his time in routine meetings or signing off internal policies. This is what happens when you make a civil servant PM. It's like a Jesuit becoming Pope.

The only thing he seems really passionate about is killing granny.

... The Court confirmed what the law had always, in plain terms, said: under the Equality Act, sex means biological sex. Not an identity. Not a certificate. Not a process. A biological reality.

This matters because the Act explicitly allows for proportionate exclusion in single-sex spaces – changing rooms, prisons, refuges – where safety, dignity and fairness demand it. For years, activists insisted otherwise, with consequences that veered from the farcical to the dangerous: men competing in women’s boxing, men in women’s prisons, men in women’s toilets and changing rooms. Women were told to accept this as “progress”, even as their safety was palpably eroded. Now, at last, the Supreme Court has reasserted both common sense and the rule of law.

And yet Phillipson’s response has been to attack the very guidance intended to implement that ruling – branding it “trans-exclusive”, “discriminatory”, and airily suggesting that the judgment has only a narrow application, largely confined to maternity rights. This is not merely wrong; it is constitutionally reckless. A Secretary of State openly resisting a Supreme Court judgment is almost unheard of. Even at the height of the Brexit wars – when the Court delivered decisions many regarded as constitutional aberrations – Theresa May and Boris Johnson did not seek to nullify or reinterpret them by ministerial fiat. ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/21/bridget-phillipsons-rewriting-of-law-is-a-betrayal-of-women/

and at https://archive.is/xAcTi

This looks like a good point to post a link to Sex Matters new campaign:
The law is clear – so get on with it! - Sex Matters

And all on the watch of Sir Keir "rule of law, or the jungle beckons" Starmer. The man who seemingly his whole ethos is summed up by the Rules Based Order.
Which suggests trans ideology is more than a neo-religion, it's more Gnostic-like cult and a rigid caste-based system of fealty.
I also believe that everyone in positions of authority on the left, whether politicians or union officials, has trans children, has family with them, knows colleagues and friends with them.
As Helen Joyce said, this belief cannot be criticized because that criticizes the child, and any burgeoning regret on such belief cannot be reconciled or admitted publicly, doubling down the rhetoric.

I read that eariler. It's going to be a long, uphill battle.

Starmer is as evasive on this as he is on most issues. He is spineless and directionless and has no sense of urgency.

What odds would you lay on him changing his mind once he sees how fast and hard the tide turns against his position?

A lot of powerful men seem to have this fetish which is exacerbated by pervasive pornography. Several billionaires have declared themselves to be women and there are probably many more men further down the line from them indulging in the same activities. This is the demographic of men who were in a position to develop an addiction to porn, especially niche versions such as sissy porn, long before it became available to pre-teen boys on smart phones.
We need to follow the Australians and ban social media for children to protect them.

What's maybe more relevant when it comes to politics is the fact that everyone especially on the left has one or more trans IDd children/one or more in extended family/has friends and colleagues with one or more.
In other words, dramatically disproportionate to the population at large. The social capital these golden children bestow is incalculable, as is the pressure to affirm.
To be involved in any policy making that would negate this is impossible to comprehend for this political class

I don't think Starmer falls into that category, but it did strike me, when I saw that much-publicised photo of Andrew lying in laps whilst Ghislaine Maxwell looked on, that this is the end-point of this increasing misogny reflected in the lives of the powerful. It doesn't matter whether they are 'left', or 'right'.

The media have been very scrupulous with the latest batch of Epstein photos to say that we shouldn't draw any adverse conclusions about the famous people in them.

Seems a bit redundant when we're talking about ex-Prince Andrew, Michael Jackson and Bill Clinton.

They won't say it because Labour lied to us in the general election campaign and they want to continue lying to us because they think we're stupid.

During the 2024 campaign, Starmer had to be repeatedly, and vigorously, prompted by interviewers to agree that he believed women deserved 'safe spaces', he couldn't bring himself to stay 'single-sex spaces'.

Any time any interviewer, or female member of the pleb class, asked him about this issue, Stamer's face assumed the 'cat's bum/sucking on a slice of lemon', expression that he gets when he has to deal with uppity women. And he got positively and visibly peeved by having to frequently hear that women exist as a separate sex class and want their own rights and spaces.

When Labour realised this was an issue for their electability with female voters, they decided to soft-soap the electorate with reassurances that, 'they hear us', and they 'will do good things for women', if we would just elect them.

Lots of FWR knew they were lying on this issue, and others, and we discussed it here but were descended upon by lots of posters pushing the idea that there were back channels between women's groups and Labour, and that Starmer could be trusted to unleash his true gender critical inner self after being elected PM. We were told that Labour were champing at the bit to spend money on issues relevant to women like caring, schools, nursery provision, maternity care, domestic violence, and that if we wanted to see the public sector revitalised we had to vote Labour to ensure that would happen. If all else failed to persuade us to consider Labour, we were called cryptoTories 🙄

We knew it wasn't going to happen, we warned that it wasn't going to happen, and it didn't happen.

200% this.
Imagine announcing measures to teach boys not to be misogynists to reassure girls while on the same day ignoring the law of the land that would prevent boys being allowed into their toilets and changing rooms.
The cognitive dissonance is off the scale.

Of course the first rule of WPUK is you don't talk about WPUK.

We heard a lot about the backchannels. We were told that women's groups were sitting down with Labour bigwigs and being heard, and Starmer was playing the clever game you would expect from a brilliant lawyer, and after Labour won we would get everything we wanted, but for some reason it was very very important for these discussions to be completely secret squirrel, so our job was to pipe down and vote Labour and then after the election we'd get everything we wanted.

I'm tempted to ask the Labour stans how that's working out for them. But they don't come around here any more, at least not in that guise.

WPUK's "A Woman's Place Is..." speaking sessions did good consciousness-raising work. But I'm a Mayday For Women resigner from the Labour Party for a reason.

I'm personally very fond of a few women in that space. But their whole strategy had them on a hiding to nothing. You're in a weak position to negotiate if the other side knows you'll never walk away, and I am not convinced that those meetings ever took place.

I wouldn't have minded so much if it wasn't for all the scolding of anyone who did unauthorised activism, instead of just leaving it to the women with influence on the inside.

Apparently, Starmers is family friends with Stephen Kinnock, therefore he could be minded to accommodate people as the opposite sex. I think he was overly passionate (for starmer) about Brianna Gheys murder because of knowing kinnocks child.

Because of her work in a domestic abuse charity Phillipson is aware of the extreme situations women need single sex services, and maybe thinks the day to day need is less important.

So regardless of pressure from donors, wanting to follow european laws, and keeping backbenchers onside, i can see that starmer is keen to have situations where people should be seen as the opposite sex. If phillipson is saying toilets arent a big deal, i can see how the government has come to the idea that refuges should be single sex, but day to day places should be pretend single sex.

probably too late for you now but this is it:

It’s not a judgement, it’s the ministers submission to the glp JR

https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/MWE-Skeleton-REDACTED.pdf?ref=wearequeeraf.com

THE KING ON THE APPLICATION OF
(1) GOOD LAW PROJECT LIMITED
(2) BOT
(3) BNW
(4) BBS
Are the Claimants

-and-

EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Is the Defendant

-and-

(1) HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE
(2) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
(3) MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES
(4) WELSH MINISTERS
(5) SCOTTISH MINISTERS

are the Interested Parties

(this is the) SKELETON ARGUMENT OF
THE MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister’s interest in this claim is ensuring that, insofar as the Court addresses the meaning of the Equality Act (“EA 2010”), it does so with the benefit of full argument.

The Minister does not advance a case as to how the claim should finally be determined.

This document does not represent a statement of policy by the Government or a
statement of the Minister’s position in respect of the draft code of practice (explained below). Rather the Minister intends to adopt a role akin to that of Advocate to the Court in relation to issues of interpretation of the EA 2010.

I was interested in what the HSE said. This is it:

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has understandably been named as an interested party
in these proceedings. However, in respect to the domestic and ECHR discrimination questions
raised by this claim, HSE considers that the defendant Equality and Human Rights Commission
(EHRC) is the appropriate regulator, to determine, subject to judicial review, the answer to those
equalities questions and to assist the court with the same. The EHRC is the appropriate
regulator both constitutionally and in terms of expertise.
Accordingly, HSE takes a neutral position in these proceedings and will not be attending the
Oral Permission Hearing listed to take place on 30 July 2025.
Any civil claim which refers to Regulation 20 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare)
Regulations 1992 (“the Workplace Regulations”) and access to sanitary conveniences by trans
persons would be likely to be analysed through the lens of a discrimination claim, as per Croft v
Royal Mail Group plc [2003] I.C.R. 1425 (CA) in the pre-Gender Recognition Act 2004 era.
HSE is able to enforce non-compliance with the Workplace Regulations. HSE takes a
risk-based approach to enforcement focused on issues which present the highest risk to people
(as contained in its Enforcement Policy Statement which is publicly available at this link
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse41.pdf).

Link https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/REDACTED-2025.07.10-Acknowledgement-of-Service.pdf

As a complete aside I am thoroughly enjoying the EHRC submission 😁

https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/EHRC-Skeleton-REDACTED.pdf

“The Claimants seek permission to challenge the lawfulness of a single bullet-point on a webpage no
longer on the website of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights”

It’s also in the EHRC guidance consultation

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-consultation-2025-changes-chapter-13