Woman banned from Council gyms...guess why? Protest 10th Jan at 1 pm see post on pg.7

[lcakethereforeIam]

Those who guessed 'because she objected to a man in the women's changing room', give yourselves a pat on the back

https://archive.ph/wLUBN

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/23/council-gym-trans-row/

Yes, I understand that. My question was what repercussions will they stand to face for non-compliance once the new COP goes through.

Well yes. As they would be er…. Breaking the law.

She was quite clear what the legal risk to organisations is. No one said it was a criminal offence to fail to keep men out of female spaces.

That's all I wanted to know, thank you for clarifying. I'm not aware of anything that's been said about the legal implications for organizations, that's why I was asking.

Whilst I understand the fear that abusive men could abuse the system and pretend to identify as a woman, trans women have largely been using 'female' changing rooms since 2010, with very few reported incidences.

The mental disconnect it takes for someone to post this actually on a thread about a woman who did 'report the incidence', and had the police called on her, has been banned and may have to go to court, is extraordinary.

And it's not the first time, either. Quite a few people say well no one complained, right in the middle of someone bloody complaining and being heavily penalised for it.

Someone apparently unable to grasp that very basic principle of safeguarding & who affects not to know that paraphilias cluster & constitute elevated risk of sexual offending doesn't seem at all suited to your vaunted work context.

Quite.

I think it's a civil matter rather than criminal, so the penalties will be fines for the company or organisation breaking the law.

They would also open themselves up to being sued, so you need to factor in possible claims for compensation as well as legal costs and fines if you're considering ignoring the law.

But there may be associated criminal acts which could take place as a result of organisations and companies breaking the law. The obvious ones are indecent exposure and voyeurism. I don't know if an organisation allowing men into women's changing rooms (for example) could be viewed as having facilitated the criminal act and employees face criminal charges, which would be a comparable situation to someone knowingly selling alcohol to a 16 year old.

You might want to get proper legal advice rather than opinions from unqualified people (like me) on Mumsnet if you're considering breaking the law.

Breaking which law?

Because other posters seem to be suggesting that it will remain a civil matter, so not comparable with how shops selling alcohol to someone underage are criminally prosecuted.

A criminal offense prosecuted by the authorities and a civil matter that an injured party can sue over are entirely different things.

One can easily lead to the other.

Facilitating indecent exposure isn't any less illegal, just because you have a policy that allows it.

A law is still a law even if breaking it is classed as a civil, rather than a criminal offence.

Yes. Just because action might end up being civil doesn’t mean it is not a law.

Yes, but my question was...

are we talking 'breaking the law' in the same way that a shop selling booze to a 16 year old can be fined and their staff criminally prosecuted, rather than a civil matter?

...to which @Namelessnelly replied...

Well yes.

Which appears not to be the case.

It's discrimination law.

Which, as we've seen in court cases, can be very costly for those breaching them.

But then crimes of indecent exposure and voyeurism still exist. And being ignorant of them isn't, apparently, a defence.

Maybe you missed the posts which carefully explained that breaking the civil law by allowing men into legal single sex spaces for women can also include them breaking criminal law - ie the sex offences of voyeurism and indecent exposure?

In addition to these offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 there's also Section 14 of "Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence. This is aimed at "preparatory acts" allowing for prosecution even if no sexual activity occurs.

Presumably that allows for those individuals / organisations enabling men to access girls undressing in what should be a single sex space, to be prosecuted as it would be argued that they should know that allowing a man to access girls in this situation enables the sex offences already mentioned.

It really is long overdue for safeguarding girls to be prioritised over the demands of men seeking their validation or thrills from gaining access to women's single sex spaces.

It's discrimination law.

Which, as we've seen in court cases, can be very costly for those breaching them.

Right...so we agree, a civil issue that would not involve criminal prosecutions as the PP suggested.

But then crimes of indecent exposure and voyeurism still exist. And being ignorant of them isn't, apparently, a defence.

They certainly do, but we're talking about the legal ramifications organizations who don't comply with the government's incoming COP will face.

I’m puzzled by this seeming attempt to create a sort of hierarchy of wrongdoing.

Presumably that allows for those individuals / organisations enabling men to access girls undressing in what should be a single sex space, to be prosecuted as it would be argued that they should know that allowing a man to access girls in this situation enables the sex offences already mentioned.

It wouldn't, no. They would need to be found to have given access for the express purpose of an offense being committed.

I think an interesting discussion could be had around whether a member of staff knowingly giving a man access to a women's single-sex space would meet the bar for a charge of criminal negligence, were they to assault someone.

Well it's JUST SO COMPLICATED to have single sex spaces, we may as well not bother. All these silly women making a silly fuss over nothing.

They will be breaching equality law. Like discriminating against employing gay people or firing a woman because she's pregnant.

A quick google search:

• Criminal Exceptions: While most breaches are civil, it is a criminal offence for an employer to knowingly or recklessly make a false statement about the lawfulness of doing something under the Act (punishable by a fine).
• EHRC Powers: The EHRC can enforce the Act and, in specific, limited cases (e.g., failure to comply with certain notices), can take action that may lead to criminal offences and "level 5" fines (unlimited).

If places continue allowing what should be single sexed spaces to be mixed and therefore run the risk of being sued, and losing, I hate to think what it'll do to their insurance premiums.

Quite

It's the modern-progressive-inclusive-intellectual variant of pious fraud - instead of "Lies for Jesus" it's "Obfuscation for Righteousness"

Organisations are being repeatedly told that women don't consent to mixed sex facilities on the basis of, among other things, the risks to safeguarding, the risk of assault, voyeurism and indecent exposure.

It's going to become increasingly unlikely that any organisation will be able to plead ignorance when women are constantly warning them.

There is a hierarchy of wrongdoing, and clearly the government thinks that selling alcohol to a 16 year old is higher up on it than an organisation and it's employees failing to enforce the legal requirements of their single-sex spaces.

I'm puzzled that the new guidance doesn't appear to include legal meaningful legal consequences.

If a business could be sanctioned with heavy fines, or having its license to operate suspended or revoked, and it's employees could face criminal prosecution for allowing anyone but biological woman into their single-sex spaces, surely that would incentivise them to get it right?

There is a hierarchy of wrongdoing, and clearly the government thinks that selling alcohol to a 16 year old is higher up on it than an organisation and it's employees failing to enforce the legal requirements of their single-sex spaces.

No. It thinks they are different matters that fall under different legal strictures.

They would need to be found to have given access for the express purpose of an offense being committed.

In the case of a communal changing room, this is exactly what they have done. A man entering a female changing room is likely to see women and girls in a state of undress (voyeurism) and is also likely to remove his own clothing (indecent exposure).

Why else would he be in there?