EHRC have suubmitted updated Code of Practice to Phillipson

[Forresty]

Stuff seems to be happening:

On 4 September 2025 the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) submitted a draft update of its Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations to the Minister for Women and Equalities.

The EHRC recently received feedback on the updated Code from the UK government.

Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:

“Progress is being made towards accurate and up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act 2010 being available to service providers, associations and those exercising public functions.

“The UK government recently provided us with a narrow set of comments on the draft Code of Practice we submitted in September. Having considered this feedback alongside consultation responses and further legal analysis, we have made adjustments where they help the Code provide legally accurate, practical guidance that is useful to duty bearers.

“These aim to strengthen duty bearers’ understanding of the law and how it applies across a range of the scenarios they encounter day-to-day. So that all service users are treated with dignity and respect, in line with the Equality Act.

“Our amended draft services Code of Practice has now been sent for the Secretary of State to approve in advance of it being laid in Parliament.”

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/update-code-practice-services-public-functions-and-associations

Whilst all of this is absolutely disgusting, not all of it is linked to this code of practice for services:

The human impact

The booklet centres the voices of women who have experienced the consequences of this failure.It tells the stories of:

• a civil servant pushed out after raising concerns about policy compliance
• NHS staff disciplined for asserting sex-based boundaries
• women excluded from single-sex spaces — or penalised for objecting when those spaces are breached
• athletes facing unfair competition or sanctions for speaking out
• volunteers and carers deemed “unsuitable” for expressing mainstream safeguarding concerns.

Yes they can. But it wastes a lot of money and time

(broken record)

So if you can enforce the law without the guidance .......

That;s never stopped a government before though.

It’s wasting time and money that some small businesses really don’t have

larger businesses have legal depts.

iirc there was a list of companies the gov wrote to to warn them of their duties but I’m not sure we ever got to learn who they are.

To clarify; this is by sex matters. I’m annoyed they’re not being accurate here.

The law says you must not drink and drive - that is the law, if you break it you might kill people and you might also be caught and punished.

The guidance tells you roughly on average how much someone can drink before they are over the limit. Being told how much you can drink is helpful to stop you breaking the law but you still break the law and can be punished even if the guidance didn’t exist or if you are small and petite and go over the limit at a lower level. It is guidance, not the law.

The courts will still enforce the law. Guidance helps lawyers, employers, service providers and the public understand how the law applies. For example, the guidance often gives examples which are often very helpful but wouldn't be provided in the law itself.

After the guidance is approved, if a court finds that there is a conflict between the legislation and the guidance, the court's interpretation of the legislation, not its interpretation of the guidance, would prevail.

I think the problem I have is that it is impossible to disprove the assertion that the guidance is really just an excuse for ensuring the law is as complicated as possible to ensure politicians, legal professionals and paid advocates never run out of work, It certainly hasn't benefited anyone else.

But thanks to all who tried 🙏

Services is just one section of the Equality Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

But this code is for services not employment.

Why can't Sex Matters look at the bigger picture?

This is the legislation regarding drink driving:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents/enacted

This is some guidance around drink driving:

https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/facts/information-about-alcohol/alcohol-and-the-law/drink-driving/drink-driving-and-the-legal-alcohol-limit#thelawanddrinkdrivinglimitsintheuk

Which do you think it is easier for a lay man to understand to ensure he follows the law without having to consult a legal professional?

This government has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia too.

Either the word "always" is meaning something different than what is generally understood to be meant, or they are using the word "protect" in a sense that means that the concept is still "protected" even when a special caste of males with magic genderfeels are allowed into the allegedly "single sex" female space, because the government has not remotely been protecting actual single-sex spaces.

Of course they can but the implication is that all those things are the fault of BP.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are responsible for a lot that would advise employers. I think there are other depts too.

And iirc that’s the submission that was not made public in the GLP case. (GLP made Phillipsons submission public.)

I think it's very simple not to drink and drive. What more do I need to know ?

Yes but twats do it daily.

This is the HSE guidance for toilets. It’s very clear:

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm

Well I think there are a few things going on here:

One is that employers keep saying that they are waiting for the Code, even though they have had it pointed out to them that it is not relevant to their situation around changing rooms and toilets, which is covered by Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

Secondly, some activist lawyers are trying to persuade workplaces that the Sex = Biological Sex ruling only applies to the Equality Act and nowhere else. Whereas the reality is that it will inevitably apply in all UK legislation that references sex.

Thirdly, some of the Government's own departments are refusing to follow the law without 'guidance', and BP and the Govt know this and should take responsibility for not putting a stop to this

Changing room guidelines

How is that my problem ?

And frankly all I have seen the drink drive guidance lead to is people (not exclusively but mainly men) play "I can have another one roulette" with the inevitable consequences for innocent people.

Not quite sure it's helping enforce the law or protect the public.

Anyway, I thought I said I was out. Must unsubscribe.

You e also missed out that stonewall et al have infected every CEO’s brain cell on LinkedIn

no one said it was your problem, only that many idiots exist who regularly drink and drive

Most of those idiots will have known it was against the law and will never have read any guidance on it.

It's all excuses and more excuses, and the chaos gremlins will jump on any clear statement and confuse the fuck out of it, that's what they do. It's training employers and the establishment to tune all that out and follow the law.

Which is clear. The SCJ used very small words. I still think pictures, a version by Mr Tumble and interpretive dance might have helped.