Women’s charities and the UK Supreme Court ruling: Murray, Blackburn, Mackenzie

[TheNoWord]

"The report details how some women’s charities have lost sight of their charitable objects over recent years. It identifies a range of charities set up specifically to benefit women that have extended their reach to include men who identify as women. These cover a range of charitable activities and delivery models, including: service provision, charitable associations, advocacy or campaigning charities, educational charities and award or prize-giving charities. We also show how funders can create pressure on charities to apply a definition of ‘woman’ that extends to men who identify as women, which is not compatible with the Supreme Court ruling, including by setting formal conditions on funding."

You can download the report and the legal opinion from Karon Monaghan KC here:

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2026/04/16/losing-focus-womens-charities-and-the-uk-supreme-court-ruling/

MBM do/commission some seriously good work. Thanks for this @TheNoWord.

NoWord, I saw a news report on this. Thanks for drawing attention to the report.

It's going to be a real task to roll this back. The inertia is strong, the ideology embedded. I think that, for many very small charities, their main concern is about funding, and "other considerations" may fall by the wayside. When I donate, I try my best to read into their policies and never donate if I perceive that they do not, at least on some level, understand basic biology. Or I will tell them why I will not be donating. (most don't seem to care-perhaps that will change if the tide is now turning)

How many years have we be saying "this will be the year things change?"

Like many quangos, the Charity Commission have proved to be absolutely useless. If the regulator won’t deal with these charities where do we go from here? Looks like we are still in the ‘lawfare’ quagmire.

MBM are great - they seem to be an island of realism and common sense.
I don't know how they got to be like that, but it's wonderful that they are!

Their website is full of useful stuff - for example this page has interesting links
Academic publications - Murray Blackburn Mackenzie

We will have to sue. And sue some more. Every. single. time.

Thank goodness for crowdfunding and women (and men) with money who are willing to pay out and support those who need it.

ps. Marie, I'm not following you around, promise!

👀I'm on the QV now😁

I think a few years ago I would have thought this is really great.

But sadly much in this report is known. Of course I apprecite that this is in a "porfessional" report, and so must might make some people take notice who wouldn't if it was just info on a FWR thread.

If anything the past year has shown is not that many people care.

And politicians are going to say we must have an investigation, we must get these women's groups to return to their WLM aims.

And despite not having sympathy with the women who are now running these groups, these groups are like this because of the combined pressure of politics (eg the Labour Party), funders who dont give a shit, just want the most cost effective use of their money(*), and of course the huge and massive sucess of Stonewall etc..

And sadly many women using these services, are probably so desperate and so concerned that criticisms would just lead to the closure of services, that they are unlikely to band together and campaign for women's groups to return to their founding principles.

It wouldn't surprise me if the MRAs dont just use this as an opportunity to say that government and charity funding should not be wasted on charities (claiming) primarily for women.

Or women's groups will just change their aims and objectives.

(*) More women's groups have closed because funders dont think women only services are cost effective. And of course women dont matter.

MBM seriously deserve some sort of reward or honour for their work. They have been superb.

Karon Monaghan KC's Opinion (linked at the end of the article) is excellent, and worth downloading and referring to if anyone is involved in lobbying charities on this issue.

Women's Aid (England) response to being mentioned in Times article about this research:

“We are confident in our adherence to the law and in our delivery of our charitable objectives. We are proud of our work to support women and children and end domestic abuse for good in England.”

https://womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-comments-on-times-piece-on-womens-only-services/

Sorry, only a superficial glance through, but a puzzle:
Page 79 f) : At a glance this seems to contradict the rest of the two documents.

In general, the facts are as depressing as 'Invisible Women'. The legal opinion is heartening. The likelihood of any enforcement organisation doing any enforcing is distressingly faint.

But the probability of emerging from the nightmare recedes, with every likely vote for a Green or any other party, other than Reform (and one called Restore?). Plus Tories but that won't happen either.

There is evidence that (mainly since the 'Isla Bryson' photo) the great majority of the general public have turned away from the fantasy that "dear little Hayley from Coronation Street" exists, and that the fictional character is a factual representative of every man who wants access to women and children. Yet politicians continue with women-hating policies, and, incredibly, that same general public will vote for them.

Its worth remembering that previous generations of women were able to put their resources into setting up and funding organisations for women and girls. Some of those organisations still own considerable property.
Our generation is raising millions for legal cases. We keep winning, but I'm mindful of what its costing.

I doubt many women's organisations own property.

If you read the news nearly every week you will find women's groups are closing because they cant get money for basic running costs one of which is rent.

There are any number of reports about how much time in a charity is spend on having to fund raise because they just get little pots of money. ie employing someone for a year part time, which will have taken hours of grant applicaiton time, which will have to re-start halfway through the year.

I cant understand how you could ever have thought this as it is a continuing pressure on women's groups. Lack of core funding.

As to raising millions that is because there is no active campaigning (partly because it is a divisive issue) so winning abortion rights could have happened through a series of court cases but in fact was done through political activism and coherent campaigns.

Some would say it is actually less committment to donate bits of money here and there that the long hard slog of co-operative campaigning.

Which I will acknowledge that in this instance would be difficult as women who say they are feminist, having opposing views.

Has the combined outcomes of legal cases changed the political climate? Judging by Labour, let alone the Greens, would imply legal wins have not changed anything.

In fact for any charity owning a property is a double edged sword, particularly now as property prices are so inflated.

They will be expected to show that it more economical to hang on to the property rather than selling it to realise income that could go to towards an office space that is cheaper to run.

In fact this attitude has led to a lot of well established housing projects (not specifically women's) like the Guiness Trust, selling off propeties, mean families etc., are forced to move away from the area they are established in. In this instance partly because many of their blocks of flats are built in what were once run down areas of London that have now become fashionable areas. So what was once housing for poorer people now become high price accommodation. Part of a totally different discussion about how London and other cities doesn't provide housing for people doing the shit work near to where this happens, but make no allowance or contribution to travel costs for those who do the work.