Looks like the GLP have managed to get Sandy Kemp's arse smacked. Ha ha.
(My bold below):
Protect-the-dollz
• 2h ago
Really badly for us.
Afaik Darlington Nurses are not appealing, so not really relevant.
But the reasoning in Peggie was grounded on Croft which this judgement finds, at para 50, to no longer be law post FWS.
Peggie also assumed that FWS vould not have intended a blanket ban on trans people accessing single sex spaces. GLP confirms exactly the opposite.
In Kelly, the decison which was most in our favour, the tribunal found that the meaning of male and female under the work regs could be trans inclusive. GLP found the opposite.
It's going to have considerable negative repercussions.
Scipling
• 2h ago
Unfortunately, as far as I can tell as a laywoman, the impact on the workplace is severe. There really doesn’t seem to be any way to interpret it as anything other than awful.
It may be possible to appeal - I personally don’t have the background to understand whether or not an appeal is realistic. I also have no idea how long the appeals process takes.
I also don’t know how quickly this is likely to be applied in the real world. I don’t know if employers are expected to act immediately, wait for EHRC guidance, try to work out exactly what does and doesn’t count as a workplace in public facilities etc.
With all of this nonsense, to me it essentially appears to come down to this:
Unless something major changes such as a successful appeal or legislation, domestic remedies are simply not going to happen. This means that our current hope is Dr McCloud’s case filed with the ECtHR. It’s just about possible that politicians may try to fix some of this if the case is accepted and communicated, but most likely we will have to wait for a ruling. The timescale for this is glacial unless the ECtHR issues a pilot judgment of some sort, or a rule 39 application is successful (unlikely)
Or to put it bluntly, this crap is going to continue for years unless our government suddenly decides to respect human rights.
There is a strong possibility that the next general election will come before the ECtHR do anything useful, and Labour are unlikely to win unless they start making major changes fast. Depending on which bunch of extreme right lunatics get voted in, they may try to exit the ECHR, but I doubt that will be quick or easy.
The only other possibility I can see is that the CoM decides that we are in breach of Goodwin, and reopens compliance monitoring. If they do, that won’t force a quick fix but it might just be enough to increase pressure to the point where the government decide that fixing it is easier than fighting it.
However, I doubt see a slight silver lining - and I’d like to know if I’m right or not - it appears that we are in a slightly better position outside of the workplace because trans inclusion is possible. And because it’s possible, the cheapest solution for an organisation is inclusion because essentially they don’t have to change anything.
Protect-the-dollz
• 1h ago
"Unfortunately, as far as I can tell as a laywoman, the impact on the workplace is severe. There really doesn’t seem to be any way to interpret it as anything other than awful."
Yes. That is my view.
"It may be possible to appeal - I personally don’t have the background to understand whether or not an appeal is realistic. I also have no idea how long the appeals process takes."
Appeals are only possible on points of law. Happily the entire JR is points of law. Sonitbis appealable. Whether the appeal will be successful? Impossible to say.
The judgement doesn't contain any fundamental technical errors. No cases quoted out of context or test of interpretation ignored so GLP will effectively be restating their case and hoping the upper courts agree.
Timewise- 6 months would be fast, 9-12 more usual.
"I also don’t know how quickly this is likely to be applied in the real world"
It should be immediate because the law is binding even without the guidance, so by confirming the guidance is an accurate reflection of the law, it has effectively been brought in by the back door.
In theory, one could go out and sue on Monday over not complying with the clarified law.
"With all of this nonsense, to me it essentially appears to come down to this:"
Your analysis hereafter is spot on imo.
Two very minor points.
There was an attempt last year to reopen Goodwin. I think at this point we can conclude it failed. The Secretafiat are required within a strict time limit to advise the CoM in their regular meetings of correspondence received unless it pertains to a matter with manifestly no hope of success.
We are well past the deadline and there has been no mention of the request in the CoE minutes. I think that avenue is closed to us.
2. The inclusion is only permitted where either there is no single sex spaces at all or where there is also a true single sex space as an alternative.
Ie to include trans women in a space with cis women, but not men, you also need a separate place for just cis women.
It is something, but it's much more restricted than people are realising.