Let's Ignore The Supreme Court and the Rule of Law (or We Hate Women. We Hate That They Have Rights. So We're Going To Break The Law Because We Feel Like It.)

[BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp]

Just a reminder:

Equality Act 2010 - 16 years ago
Supreme Court ruling (April 2025) - 15 months ago

I'm so angry about all the public services in the UK that are refusing to obey the law, that I thought I'd just start a list of them, starting with the most recent I can think of (and have recent threads on FWR). Please feel free to add any others you find.

Lambeth Council
NHS Scotland
Staffordshire Police
Hampstead Ponds
Bristol City Council

Edinburgh Council?

Manchester City Council?

You are starting to sound like an apologist for lawbreakers, which is probably not the look you were going for.

What was the first thing I said? I don't think lawfare alone is enough to permanently defeat gender ideology, you need both lawfare and cultural change.

To be honest, I'm more concerned by the fact that you said you would be ok with trans activists changing the laws to let men into women's spaces ("If people don't like the law, they can try to change it. I have no problem with that.") That's not a good look @BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp

List so far:

The Civil Service

NHS Scotland
West London NHS Trust

Hampstead Ponds

Lambeth Council
Bristol City Council
Waltham Forest Council
Hackney Council?
Brighton and Hove City Council
London Assembly
Lewisham Council?
Edinburgh Council?
Manchester City Council?

Gwent Police
Staffordshire Police

The Special Place in Hell List

The OU - lost against Jo Phoenix: have launched a research program about what it's like to be persecuted by transphobes 🙄

Amnesty - on the losing side in FWS: launched damaging libels against the winning parties.

Amazing how the liberals in society were happy to be the most illiberal.
And that to conserve lawfulness you really have to be conservative minded.

Anyone who's mind is as ridged as you're describing is not going to change it for anything. Trying to do so is a waste of time, they need to be shown that they're infexible attitude won't fly anymore, and they need to suck it up or be fined, sack or imprisoned, which ever gets them out of the way so everyone else can get on with their lives. They don't have the right to hold everyone hostage to their beliefs.

Well you can't blame them because its damned if they do & damned if they don't.

It's important to remember that it's only possibly illegal for service providers to allow trans people which won't even be known for certain until case law clarifies this. If you have a single-sex space a trans person can still go into that single-sex space, but if someone complains, they can bring out a sex discrimination claim or the organisation can exclude that person, but that doesn’t happen automatically. Even if you do have a single-sex space, the exclusion must be proportionate, which means that the rights of whoever wants to be in a single-sex space, if they’re complaining, have to be counterbalanced against the rights of a trans person. Those rights still exist. The law hasn’t changed on that.

Maybe if it was your personal liability on the line you might understand the legal quagmire they have been forced into.

The Supreme Court judgment in FWS is case law, no further clarification is required about single sex spaces. No lower court can reach a decision which contradicts the supreme court

If a space is single sex only people of that sex can use it.

No, Whisperingwaters. That’s like saying the speed limit is 70, but we won’t know if it’s lawful to drive at 80 until someone is prosecuted for it.

And once there is a single-sex service, the proportionality test has already been met. It doesn’t apply person by person.

False. An individual trans person can still sue a service provider under the grounds the exclusion wasn't proportionate for public toilets that is yet to be tested in a court of law.

In other words, there's no law yet specifying exclusion from* *public toilets as proportionate.

You are wrong, as PPs have stated. Do not rely on GLP for interpretation of the law.

In other words, there's no law yet specifying exclusion from public toilets as proportionate.

There doesn't need to be. A single sex female space must of necessity exclude all males. If a male also possesses the PC of gender reassignment that has no bearing at all on their exclusion. They are excluded because they are male not because they are trans.

The fact there is a single sex service established for privacy, propriety, decency etc is sufficient. There is no other test of proportionality required.

You don't understand the law.

The proportionality test still applies in addition to conditions. So if a person wants to challenge their exclusion in court the service provider will have to prove proportionality.

27
(1)
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)
any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)
the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)
The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)
the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)
The condition is that—
(a)
a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)
the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)
The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)
a hospital, or
(b)
another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)
the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)
The condition is that—
(a)
there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)
B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)
This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

Disgraceful situation. These organisations aren’t above the law.

I’m also wondering how many private sector organisations have quietly ignored the law too. It’s a bit confusing that the SCR relates to services but how many private companies have flouted health and safety law for years because they appplied stonewall law. Many Employees in private sector orgs genuinely are still afraid and avoid speaking out on this issue. If it hasn’t done so already the HSE should be leading- maybe they are, I admit I haven’t checked.

The root cause of this is a bloated, arrogant public sector which has got far too powerful and instead of believing in public service, now thinks the plebs are there only to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed. After years of feather bedding, it’s no real surprise they now believe they are above the law while you and I can be locked up for hurty words. Just like the Party in former Soviet Russia, they are the powerful elite who take every privilege going while the rest of us work harder just to get poorer.

Which laws are they going to flout next because they decide they don’t like them?

And what about those MPs who signed the letter against the EHRC ruling while we’re compiling a list?

You don't understand the law.

On the contrary YOU don't understand the law. A single sex service that involves toilets or getting undressed is always justified for reasons of privacy, propriety, decency etc. There is no other test of proportionality required. It's always proportionate to exclude males from the Ladies & female changing rooms on grounds of privacy, propriety, decency etc There is no arguable case for having males into female toilets & changing rooms.

The condition is that—
(a)
the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)
the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

It's always reasonable for women to object to the presence of men in their toilets & changing rooms.

Go on then. Try suing a service provider that provides separate male and female facilities, on the grounds that the proportionality test is not met, and it is therefore illegal sex-discrimination to exclude each sex from the facilities of the opposite sex. Don't forget that the government mandates such separation in some contexts, such as workplaces, so it presumably does have a point!

Your ignorance of the law is so thorough and detailed that it can only be feigned.

Getting back to this list, what about trade unions? I'll start with Unison.

Editing to add: although I'm not sure if they'd count as service providers.

A single sex service that involves toilets or getting undressed is always justified for reasons of privacy, propriety, decency etc. There is no other test of proportionality required.

You don't understand what proportionality means. Proportionality means that rights have to be balanced. In other words, a trans person gets a say in how their rights are are compromised for privacy, proprietary, decency AND safety as well. Proportionality isn't a one way street & case law is yet to prove that particularly for public toilets.

The court will be required to balance the competing rights according to the particular circumstances.

You are wrong.

The judgement about proportionality comes at the point of deciding to provide the single sex service in the first place. Is it proportionate to provide single sex toilets/changing rooms /domestic violence unit etc ?

Good luck to an individual trans person bringing a challenge against the decision to provide the female sex with separate spaces with the suggestion it is not a proportionate solution to achieve a reasonable goal ie the privacy, dignity and safety of female people away male people.

While it It may also be discriminatory to only have mixed sex provision, from the point of view of the service provider, the more immediate problem is that provision that includes people of both sexes is not single sex and must be managed accordingly. Unisex toilet provision is obviously legal, but the relevant building standards must be met.

Even if you do have a single-sex space, the exclusion must be proportionate, which means that the rights of whoever wants to be in a single-sex space, if they’re complaining, have to be counterbalanced against the rights of a trans person.

The proportionate test is whether the space can exclude people of the opposite sex, not whether it can exclude people who have a particular belief about gender.

For a service to be single sex, it must meet the criteria in the Equality Act. If some people of the opposite sex are included, then in most cases you will be demonstrating that the criteria have not been met so the service shouldn't be single sex.

(Children under 8 would be the obvious example of an exception, but this is a blanket rule for an objectively quantifiable group and at the discretion of the service provider.)

if they’re complaining, have to be counterbalanced against the rights of a trans person.

They might be able to argue that there aren't sufficient unisex/mixed sex provision, but there is no right to use services for the opposite sex. Similarly I can't argue that I have suffered discrimination because of my sex if I can't use a blue badge parking space.

Maybe if it was your personal liability on the line you might understand the legal quagmire they have been forced into.

FWS won the case that clarified the law for most trans people in 2022. If there had been more focus on practical solutions and less on arguing that sex is irrelevant, then service providers would certainly be in a better position now.

It might not come down to the entirety of the male sex being discriminated against because for a discrimination case to be successful a disadvantage has to proven. For most males that might not apply but for some like children or trans women it might.

No!

The proportionality requirement applies to the provision of the service in the first place. Single-sex toilets: yes. Men-only bank: no.

The Supreme Court considered all this. Read the judgment.

I knew this thread would get piled on, because it's a thread started by an angry woman stating the truth about our public services.

For anyone who may be lurking and is still unsure, Whisperingwaters has been propounding this Fake Law on several threads. You may disregard his arguments in their entirety.

THIS IS THE LAW:

a. If a service is deemed "single sex" then it has already passed the "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim" test.

b. If a service allows anyone of the opposite sex to use the incorrect single-sex service, they are breaking the law.

c. No service, therefore, can allow a male person (of whatever persuasion) to use a female single-sex service. The end.

d. Case law doesn't come into it.

e. "Case-by-case" means the service, not the individual. See a. above.

f. Whisperingwaters is spectacularly misinformed about the law or Whisperingwaters is deliberately lying about the law.

That's it.

So far we have had two people post on here with less than good faith intentions.

One: It's TOO HARD, don't take them to court, we must change hearts and minds first. (btw, going on the tactics list)

The Other One: You're interpreting the law in a way I don't like (or understand), so I'm going to lie until you do what I say.

To both of them: No. We've seen these tactics a million times. Won't wash. Just no. We're going to sue these useless pieces of crap until they comply with the law. And the JKR fund has more money than you will ever see in your entire lifetime. And women will use it.

The list stands.