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.

Their website is non compliant too - should have more company / org details, no link to website policies etc.

Someone who wanted to raise complaints aside from just commenting could really adjust their focus.

'If you knew anything about Christianity...'
Would an entire childhood of Christian Doctrine classes, daily prayer in three different languages and weekly Mass qualify as 'knowing anything about Christianity?'

If you think you know more about anybody on this thread about Christian Doctrine, start that thread suggested by BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth, and I'll see you over there

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04721661

And you can write to the directors telling them that their clergy are knowingly breaching criminal law and civil law and their insurers have been informed - so likely their insurance is invalidated due to intentional breach of the law.

I suspect they are going to massively regret opening this can of worms!

Or to paraphrase, “if someone is doing something, it must be the will of God”

Now that is a broad church!

Yes and this is a concern for their safeguarding lead as they are knowingly breaching the law and making the children of the parish unsafe.

Trans identified males can use the men’s facilities then.

Yes, any organisation that flagrantly flouts the ruling is going to be subject to a very intense spot-light going forward. Which is bad for them, but good for the ruling.

'Christianity conflicts with gender critical views'?

If you knew anything about the Catholic church's gender critical views.....

If you’re ever in the area will you take a photo of their certificate of public liability. It has to be displayed. Also their employers liability insurance?

Id very much appreciate it and can donate to your church / charity

I'd have thought most established churches are now very aware of the importance of ' safeguarding' - in the light of church sexual abuse scandals. Liverpool Cathedral, for example, makes it 'safeguarding' approach front and centre on its website and on its promotional materials.

'Friends of' organisations don't have any governance influence on CofE churches. They are there to fundraise, normally for the building. The incumbent clergy and Parochial Church Council hold responsibility for safeguarding. You'd normally raise with incumbent/PCC in the first instance and then with the Archdeacon. There should be details of Church Wardens on the website (they share responsibility for the building with the incumbent clergy), and normally arrange insurance.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I've been dwelling on the matter of Durham Cathedral, home to the relics of St Cuthbert. I went with a group studying geology - it's got some very good rocks. It also has a strip of rock let into the floor near the door across which women were not supposed to cross for fear of arousing the ire of the saint. For centuries, and in the name of a saint who wasn't at all misogynist. I suspect some of the Sunderland staff of sharing their Durham predecessors regret at having to let women in to worship.
And, BTW, another saint has been misquoted above. It wasn't Paul who ordered women to keep silent, it was someone else who lied about who he was. All the misogynist stuff in Timothy - fake, like the exclusion from Durham, and now Sunderland.

So they're breaking the law. Hope someone sues.

The very fact of biological sex is 'exclusionary'. If you are male you are not female. The church is, and has always been aware that there are two sexes.
And when mainstream religion meets reality we find that the dignity and privacy of one's sex tends to be a thing.

Christianity can interpreted and viewed through many lenses - according to one's temperament or personal prejudices - but there has never been a teaching that men are women, or that female dignity has no bearing on our organisation of society.

Here you go

Draft Complaint Letter
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[City, Postcode]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]
The Directors / PCC / Relevant Authority
Sunderland Minster
[Full Address of Sunderland Minster – e.g., via their website or public records]
CC:

• Diocese of Durham (Bishop and relevant safeguarding/ legal officers)
• Employers’ Liability and Public Liability Insurers (if known, or request details)
• Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
• Charity Commission (if applicable as a registered charity)

Subject: Formal Complaint – Non-Compliance with Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Equality Act 2010 Implications, Safeguarding Failures, and Insurance Invalidity at Sunderland Minster Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally complain about Sunderland Minster’s public position and practices regarding single-sex toilets and related policies, which appear to place the organisation, its directors/PCC members, staff, volunteers, and the wider Diocese in breach of legal obligations. 1. Breach of Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Following the High Court judgment in Good Law Project v EHRC (and related clarification of the law post-For Women Scotland), it is clear that Regulation 20 of the 1992 Workplace Regulations requires suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences, with separate rooms for men and women (based on biological sex), unless each convenience is in a separate lockable room for single occupancy.2327 Sunderland Minster has publicly posted a notice acknowledging a breach of these regulations by failing to provide single-sex toilets based on biological sex. You have also publicly stated your intention to continue permitting biological males (trans women) to use female facilities. This directly contravenes the requirement for single-sex provision “for reasons of conventional decency” and privacy.2 2. Public Intention to Breach the Law and Insurance Implications Your organisation is on record stating that it intends to continue this policy despite the clarified legal position. A deliberate and public intention to breach statutory health and safety regulations is likely to invalidate both employers’ liability insurance and public liability insurance. This exposes directors/PCC members personally, as well as the organisation, to significant financial and legal risk in the event of any incident, claim, or regulatory action. I request full details of your current insurance policies and confirmation that insurers have been notified of this stated position. 3. Website and Policy Non-Compliance Your website and public materials appear to lack appropriate, up-to-date policies compliant with current equality and health & safety law. In particular, there is a concerning absence of clear, lawful safeguarding policies that reflect the legal position on single-sex spaces. This falls short of expected standards for an organisation open to the public, including families and children. 4. Safeguarding and Child Protection Concerns Your public statement invites teenage girls (and other women) who feel uncomfortable to ask clergy or volunteers (unknown adults) to accompany them to the toilets and wait outside the stall. This involves unknown or minimally vetted adults being alone with or in close proximity to children in a state of undress in a supervisory capacity.2 This raises serious safeguarding issues, including:

• Potential lack of DBS checks, specific training, or insurance for such supervision.
• Risk of distress, inappropriate interaction, or safeguarding breaches.
• Failure to prioritise the dignity, privacy, and safety of girls and women.

Such practices have direct implications for the personal liability of directors/PCC members (“Friends of the Sunderland Minster” or equivalent) and potential reputational and legal exposure for the Diocese of Durham. I urge you to immediately:

1. Revert to full compliance with the 1992 Workplace Regulations by providing single-sex toilet facilities based on biological sex (or adequate single-occupancy alternatives).
2. Remove or correct the non-compliant notice and public statements.
3. Review and update all policies, including safeguarding, equality, and health & safety, to ensure legal compliance.
4. Notify insurers and conduct a full risk assessment.
5. Engage with the Diocese for oversight and support.

I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the HSE, Charity Commission, relevant regulators, and/or pursue other legal remedies if not addressed promptly. I look forward to your full response within 14 days, including details of steps taken to achieve compliance. Yours faithfully, [Your Full Name]

Send to the people linked above including Directors and Diocese emails. Also safeguarding lead.

• Customise with your details and any specific evidence (e.g., screenshots of the notice/Facebook post).
• Consider sending via recorded delivery/email with read receipts.
• If you are a regular attendee, parent, or local resident, mention your legitimate interest.

Is there is WRN group or similar who could coordinate?

Jesus will save them if they’re doing the right thing no doubt.

Unsafe self focused muppets.

It's direct discrimination if people with a belief in the reality of sex (which is a belief established in law to be worthy of resoect in a democratic society and is perfectly compatible with Christian beliefs) does not have the same freely available immediate access to toilet facilities as others, and must go through additional procedures and be escorted in a way that is clearly intended to be demeaning, undignified and "othering" and if that person also has complicated issues with heavy period bleeding or urge incontinence they are going to feel thoroughly unwelcome in that church. What a shitty thing to do. There is nothing stopping the church from having male and female facilities and a unisex option for anyone who doesn't want to use the facilities for their sex. Clearly and wholeheartedly trans people are welcome and loved and belong in the body of Christ and need access to loos just as much as the next person, but the church has had several hundred years (since we stopped burning eachother for wrongthink) at accommodating people with different and incompatible beliefs within the same church. We have done that by upholding that the only core beliefs to which we all subscribe are the words of the Nicene Creed and beyond that people are free to follow their own conscience. Belief in the validity of ordination of women, in transubstatiation, in the perpetual virginity of St Mary, and in the reality of a person's gender beliefs over-ruling their sex are all optional things that specific people may or may not agree with but respect and uphold the rights of other Christians to hold the opposite view.

She seems to have a so-called 'trans son' (i.e. a daughter who thinks she's a man), who I presume will be using her shewee in the inclusive men's toilets.

Well, when he doesn’t, they’ll have to repent (motherfuckers!)

<sagely shakes tambourine>

Given tone and behaviour I can’t see the fruits of the Spirit in any of it.

On the other hand the law….

It reads as such a cruel dismissal of the trauma that many women suffer due to male sexual violence.

Echoing the attitude of the police and health professionals in the aftermath. The kind of dehumanising, retraumatising dismissal that stops so many women even reporting in the first place.

How deeply entrenched misogyny is.

Great letter!
I would only add to

1. Review and update all policies, including safeguarding, equality, and health & safety, to ensure legal compliance.

and ensure these are published, accessible, and prominently displayed on Sunderland Minster's public-facing website.

(or some such wording)

Sorry about the 1. Can't get rid of it for some reason!