Darlington Nurses ask Council to implement Single Sex provision - rejected as Reform trojan horse

[IwantToRetire]

The Darlington Nursing Union has sent a formal letter to members of Darlington Council after councillors rejected a motion calling for stronger protections for women’s “privacy, dignity and safety” across council services.

But the council has hit back, insisting “misconceptions circulating online” have distorted what was actually agreed at the meeting.

The motion urged the authority to implement the implications of a 2025 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which stated that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex.

Conservative group leader Jonathan Dulston had argued the council should act to ensure women and girls could access services safely.

But the proposal faced strong opposition across the chamber.

Labour councillor Libby McCollom said the motion promoted a “cruel and harmful narrative”.

She said: “The cruel and harmful narrative pedalled by councillors Dulston and Walker in this motion frames transgender and non-binary people as a danger to women.

“There is no evidence that this is true.”

Green Party leader Matthew Snedker added: “I'm really proud that we have pulled together and held the line against a Reform Trojan horse motion.”

Extracts only, full article https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/25994996.council-response-darlington-trans-changing-room-backlash/

Utter gibberish!

"In a statement, a spokesperson for Darlington Borough Council said confusion had spread online about the outcome of the meeting.

They said: “We understand discussions around single-sex spaces can be sensitive, and we are aware of some misconceptions circulating online.

“To be clear, the council is not changing how single sex spaces are currently managed – that use is determined by biological sex.”

The authority said toilets, changing rooms and similar facilities would continue to operate exactly as they currently do.

It added that the motion agreed by councillors simply states the council will not introduce blanket exclusions from services and that any restrictions must be justified on a case by case basis under the Equality Act.

The council said it will review its policies when the Government issues statutory guidance for public bodies, adding that its priority is to act “lawfully, responsibly and respectfully – ensuring safety, dignity and privacy for everyone.”

To use Naomi Cunningham's Nut Free analogy:

1. We will continue to ensure our Nut-Free spaces are nut-free by banning all nuts from our Nut-Free spaces.
2. Obviously, this does not mean that we plan to ban all nuts from our Nut-Free spaces.
3. Instead, we will continue to assess each and every nut and decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not we would be justified in banning a particular nut from our genuinely 100% nut-free Nut-Free spaces.
4. This is called Stonewall Law, which is far more important than any Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of "nuts" under the Equality Act so we are confident that we are doing the right thing and it's all legit.
5. We will have a bit of a think and might possibly do something different as and when the Government issues some guidance or other about the Equality Act.
6. Until then, we will continue to manage our Nut-Free spaces in a way that allows us to continue excluding all nuts whilst including some nuts according to secret "case by case" criteria hidden in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in the basement stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard".

FOIR Alert! One to watch!

Single-Sex Services
29 March 2026

Dear Darlington Borough Council,

On April 16th, 2025, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in the matter of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers. That case decided that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ must be interpreted to mean ‘biological man’, ‘biological woman’ and ‘biological sex’.

Under the Equality Act it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sex unless a specific exemption applies. One of those exemptions permits the provision of single-sex services in appropriate circumstances without fear of a sex-discrimination claim.

The effect of the For Women Scotland case is that it has always been unlawful to include even a single member of the opposite sex in a single-sex facility, even if that person has the benefit of a gender recognition certificate.

Historically, many local authorities were persuaded by lobby organisations and activist groups to adopt unlawful policies that have permitted, in particular, male individuals to be included in designated female-only spaces.

Even if, which I do not accept, it is possible to argue that these councils were ‘mislead’ as to the meaning of the legislation, the proper interpretation has been clear for 12 months. The council as a whole, and its senior officers personally, are jointly under an obligation to ensure that the authority complies with the law and does not facilitate the continuation of policy that is unlawful. Continuing to maintain and implement policies that are, in effect, ultra vires, leaves the authority and its principal officers open to serious legal consequences.

Please, therefore, provide me with the following information and documentation.

1. A copy of the Council’s current policies relating to the provision and use, by both staff and members of the public, of single-sex facilities operated by or on behalf of the Council . Please confirm when this policy was first implemented and when it was last formally reviewed.
2. Has the Council conducted an equality impact assessment to consider what action is necessary with respect, in particular, to single sex facilities following the For Women Scotland judgment? If so, please provide a copy. If not, please confirm whether such a review has been scheduled and when it is expected to reach a conclusion.
3. Alternatively, if a decision has been taken not to conduct such a review, please provide the relevant papers and minutes of any meeting at which this was discussed and/or determined.
4. When does the Council expect to have completed any review on the provision of single-sex services?

Yours faithfully,
MartinJ Lugsdin

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/single_sex_services_2

Green Party leader Matthew Snedker added: “I'm really proud that we have pulled together and held the line against a Reform Trojan horse motion.”

It's definitely a left/right thing, with all those political groups that identify as left ganging up on all those groups they identify as right. With such a lopsided political landscape the 'lefties' are going to be able to keep blocking anything that doesn't follow their narrative. Without more on the right to balance things out it'll have to be lawfare all the way.

I hope The Darlington Nursing Union pursue this all the way.

Thanks Newcastle, great FOI request and FFS those councillors. Can you imagine them doing this about any other protected group? But women don’t count because they aren’t real humans.

... any restrictions must be justified on a case by case basis under the Equality Act. ...

Bollocks!

The Green Party leader in Darlington has an adult child that identifies as trans, he's not neutral in this debate.

Well there we go then…

Dehumanising, that's what it is - these are not women, they are horses, and not even proper horses, flat-pack self-assembly horses!

It reminds me of the DUP's Arlene Foster using similar language to dehumanise her political opponents, she compared them to crocodiles of all things!

It backfired seriously for her as it handed her opponents the chance to have lots of fun with canvassers wearing crocodile outfits, inflatable crocs, 'Crocodile Rock' etc etc, and damaged her more than it damaged her opponents.

It would be good if dehumanising nurses backfired on the Green Party in a similar way..

How interesting to see the phrase case by case come up again...