Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling

309 replies

labtest57 · 26/05/2026 22:21

This is from their Facebook page today. No consideration for the women who do not want men in their spaces.

Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling
OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
WarriorN · Yesterday 19:18

Distractable · Yesterday 19:10

Perhaps they deleted because now Martina has tweeted about it! https://x.com/Martina/status/2059690478069600347

Brilliant!

All three terven groups in the NE have at least 1 person someone writing that I know of.

SexRealistic · Yesterday 19:18

POWNewcastleEastWallsend · Yesterday 18:58

LWS North East are on to it - I'll pass on your template letter 🙏 xx

Glad to hear it. Anything else you need let me know.

I would really like a copy of their insurance certificates.

Until the risk passes to people for their actions we will see more and more of this.

SexRealistic · Yesterday 19:19

WarriorN · Yesterday 19:18

Brilliant!

All three terven groups in the NE have at least 1 person someone writing that I know of.

Delighted to hear that.

Well done the Terven.

WarriorN · Yesterday 19:27

I don’t know if this image has been shared yet?

Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling
HappilyHarriet · Yesterday 19:29

Distractable · Yesterday 19:10

Perhaps they deleted because now Martina has tweeted about it! https://x.com/Martina/status/2059690478069600347

Great work you dreadful middle aged women!! That’s at least one person who has just been peaked by the great Martina herself!

SexRealistic · Yesterday 19:39

Distractable · Yesterday 19:07

They've completely deleted the post on FB now https://www.facebook.com/sunderlandminster

So sure so strong so righteous!

Until facts & law kick in.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · Yesterday 19:42

Yes, you'd think if she really believed in this action, she'd be prepared to defend it! I sincerely hope that she, as a Christian canon, doesn't hold her Christian views as lightly.

DialSquare · Yesterday 19:44

SexRealistic · Yesterday 19:39

So sure so strong so righteous!

Until facts & law kick in.

Yep. They seemed so proud of themselves until the backlash.

Mmmnotsure · Yesterday 19:56

DialSquare · Yesterday 19:44

Yep. They seemed so proud of themselves until the backlash.

They are clearly the righteous ones. And they themselves thanked so many people who commented agreeing with them.

It's all a bit brave Sir Robin.

loislovesstewie · Yesterday 20:05

Oh damn! My bon mots have been binned! Was it something I said Sunderland Minster?

SexRealistic · Yesterday 20:11

DialSquare · Yesterday 19:44

Yep. They seemed so proud of themselves until the backlash.

Well it wasn’t a backlash yet - I imagine that’s to come. When the legal impact bears down they’ll catch a grip.

They probably heard a bit of noise outside their usual echo chamber and took a wobble.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · Yesterday 20:18

It very simple, although I expect a lot of people will continue to argue that it's complicated. Just obey the law. The rest of us have to.

MarieDeGournay · Yesterday 23:52

Distractable · Yesterday 19:10

Perhaps they deleted because now Martina has tweeted about it! https://x.com/Martina/status/2059690478069600347

Whaaat? Actual Martina Navratilova? Wow!
Maybe she'd like to come and post on this threadGrin

Supporterofwomensrights · Yesterday 23:57

Expressing much love and thanks to Martina! 💗

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · Today 00:24

It’s an enormous shame that more than 1600 comments mostly gender critical have been binned from the Internet

Mmmnotsure · Today 00:39

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · Today 00:24

It’s an enormous shame that more than 1600 comments mostly gender critical have been binned from the Internet

That's Sunderland Minster for you.

An "outward-looking and inclusive" church who don't include anyone they don't like or who dares to question them; who delete topics and comments that they disagree with or want to hide; who consider themselves above the law, and who don't even have working links to their own safeguarding policies on their website - which by the way is down atm for "planned" (ha ha) maintenance.

miri1985 · Today 00:48

From an insurance perspective this seems crazy, surely openly admitting that you're breaking the law would leave you massively liable. I'm not even just talking about something happening in the toilets but lets say theres a slip and fall anywhere on the premises, the insurance company would 100% use that sign/policy as a reason that the contract was broken and not pay out.

If they did disclose to their insurer that they're breaking the law, if they did decide to insure them the premium would surely be astronomical

MarieDeGournay · Today 07:03

Mmmnotsure · Today 00:39

That's Sunderland Minster for you.

An "outward-looking and inclusive" church who don't include anyone they don't like or who dares to question them; who delete topics and comments that they disagree with or want to hide; who consider themselves above the law, and who don't even have working links to their own safeguarding policies on their website - which by the way is down atm for "planned" (ha ha) maintenance.

Fortunately, comments on social media are not the only means of communication - e-mails, postcards, letters....

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · Today 07:09

Mmmnotsure · Today 00:39

That's Sunderland Minster for you.

An "outward-looking and inclusive" church who don't include anyone they don't like or who dares to question them; who delete topics and comments that they disagree with or want to hide; who consider themselves above the law, and who don't even have working links to their own safeguarding policies on their website - which by the way is down atm for "planned" (ha ha) maintenance.

Someone's had a word. Imagine the panic! Well, I look forward to reading their "Safeguarding " policies. Let's hope they've had time to give them the once over, if necessary.

Or, have they been frantically writing overnight?

Wearenotborg · Today 07:13

Aisha176 · Yesterday 11:14

It's a statement about equality & if you knew anything about Christianity you would know that.

And if you knew anything about what a place of worship of God is you would know its a house of trust not suspicion.

But didn’t the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York have to resign because of child abuse scandals just last year? Are you saying all Christians should be above suspicion and never questioned or investigated? Have you never heard of safeguarding?

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · Today 07:16

miri1985 · Today 00:48

From an insurance perspective this seems crazy, surely openly admitting that you're breaking the law would leave you massively liable. I'm not even just talking about something happening in the toilets but lets say theres a slip and fall anywhere on the premises, the insurance company would 100% use that sign/policy as a reason that the contract was broken and not pay out.

If they did disclose to their insurer that they're breaking the law, if they did decide to insure them the premium would surely be astronomical

Absolutely. If insurers want a reason not to pay out, they'll find one! I had to threaten one insurer with legal action once because they tried that on me. Sunderland Minister will need to be very careful here.

There was a point at which the Minster seemed to be breaking the law (putting that ridiculous sign up), even if they have backed down now (and we don't know that they have). And there is photographic evidence. If the insurers want to use that as an excuse not to insure them anymore, or to raise their premiums, I'm sure they will try.

Then again, the Minster have probably been breaking the law this whole time by letting men use the women's toilet..

Apollo441 · Today 07:27

They can't just sweep this under the carpet and carry on. They have made public statements of their intention to ignore the law and provided photographic evidence to that effect. They will need to retract these statements and publically display compliant safeguarding policy. The alternative is to be sued. They invited this humiliation hope they enjoy it.

SexRealistic · Today 07:37

Apollo441 · Today 07:27

They can't just sweep this under the carpet and carry on. They have made public statements of their intention to ignore the law and provided photographic evidence to that effect. They will need to retract these statements and publically display compliant safeguarding policy. The alternative is to be sued. They invited this humiliation hope they enjoy it.

If we track their website it’s safeguarding page says Come safeguarding applies.

Link is broken but if I look at CoE policy then it says clearly everyone including this Minister has to follow the policy.

Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling
Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling
Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling
loislovesstewie · Today 08:02

@BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth I did ask them yesterday if they would be responsible if an incident took place in the toilet as a result of this ridiculous policy of theirs. Clearly they would be. I just think ' how can people be so stupid'