Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling

[labtest57]

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

"have to take extra action (call a chaperone) in order to use the toilets with privacy from TW."

Yes, and they're not even getting privacy. They're getting even less privacy, because now potentially there might be a transwoman in there, plus this mocking "chaperone".

Yes, I wonder how they would respond to that in real life?

Their tweet was so mocking and sarcastic - is this how they would respond to women in person? I imagine that at least some of the staff on the ground would be taken aback.

Whatever you think about the short comings Christianity, my point here is to explain how it conflicts with gender critical views & other exclusionary ideologies. Whether you like it or not it's an inclusionary philosophy that happens to underpin Western Civilisation that you are going to have to reckon with.

Young girls sharing enclosed spaces with potentially any male who claims to be a woman...

If they are letting trans-identified girls into men's toilets then they are letting girls share enclosed spaces with any male, with or without a trans-identity.

They dont comply

Late to this; this is totally wrong isn’t it?! 🤪

I can’t believe their gaslighting is still making me doubt myself!

For context:

a poster asks “is this legal in a public building?” (Feminist)

another replies “not with that sign.” (Feminist)

the male poster posts the reply in the screen shot

“May” and “must” are key distinctions as in safeguarding law, must is legally binding. If you don’t you will be prosecuted.

should isn’t as legally binding. However it’s still statutory and you risk loosing your job, being sued or being severely career ending criticised by Ofsted/ others/ papers.

Surely you MUST create either a single sex toilet for women or fully enclosed secure unisex toilets (which we know have their own issues

You still haven't explained how your view of Christianity is that it's exclusionary of women who have reasons why they need single sex spaces?

Can you point me to the part in the bible about 'thou shalt unwillingly but submissively pee for the gratification of a man in a dress?'

Ask for a copy of their insurance certificate - and then send all their messages and screenshots to their insurers registered mail.

When their insurance in cancelled they’ll thing again.

They can fuck with the law but their insurers won’t.

And my point was actually your derision for and sneering at women who need and want single sex spaces, since you apparently have absolutely no idea why this may be.

If you're into Christianity, it's all people. You're the one conflicting with it, not me. I want equality of facility and consideration for all: to treat others as I would wish to be treated. It does not conflict with Christianity at all. Those on the side of the splintery baseball bats for raping/murdering women for needing single sex spaces on the other hand? That conflicts extremely hard.

Yes, that's my understanding. You don't have to provide separate male and female toilets, but you cannot just relabel cubicle toilets as 'mixed sex'.

You do. But the batshit is strong in this movement. And basic reading comprehension not so much.

Yes per GLP vEHRC.

Every organisation has to have public liability insurance.

Ask for a copy, inform their insurers of breach of the law. Copy in their directors from companies house / charity commission.

Their insurance will be invalidated if they are intentional breach.

Anyone know which high up to complain to (one in the temporal world ideally).
Also what would I say

thanks for replies; so this is how many are interpreting it without understanding the ACTUAL legal requirements for the physical loos.

twisting and gaslighting continues.

excellent advice, thank you

The first port of call would probably be the Archdeacon, Katherine Bagnall https://durhamdiocese.org/about-us/leadership/archdeacons/

Isn’t this why the code has been published? For the lay person who doesn’t understand law?

clearly reading comprehension is severely impaired in the U.K.

But he did command the women to learn in silence...

This is just blatantly making it up!

If women are not even supposed to wear clothing made of mixed fabrics there's no way people are supposed to alter their bodies so drastically. Self-aggrandising, self-excusing nonsense!

Another student of the master

Pretty sure the premise of this thread mentioned absolutely nothing about Christianity, just the political prejudices of some of its earthly representatives. And anyway, isn't this a perfect example of a case where you should "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's..".

Their office email since they’ve closed Facebook commmets is

[email protected]

https://sunderlandminster.org.uk/

I would also raise the issue with the safeguarding lead.

If a teenage girl experiencing a period is followed to the toilet and monitored by some random - what safeguarding assessment has been made and given that likely no one should be alone with kids in a state of undress with adults unknown to them - another issue for insurance.

Contact Details
Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser: Beth Miller
Telephone: 0191 5654066
Cuthbert House,
Stonebridge,
Durham
DH1 3RY
email: [email protected]
Telephone: 07968034075