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

And as I also explained to the other derailer, you still have to obey the law as it is now.

If you don't like how a service has determined the "reasonableness of a proportionality assessment " then take them to court!

If you don't like the law in general, then campaign to change the law.

Until then, the law stands. And no one is above the law.

You know this, which is why you are posting nonsense into the ether. You are wrong. We're done. The law has been clarified. And we are suing. End of.

The bottom line is that rights you can't enforce without vast expenditure of resources are no rights at all.

Welcome to the world of the less able. Sorry.

It's a tricky one, agreed. Eventually, we might have to sue them all, but I'm hoping that if one or two of them suffer financial damages, it might help to shift the others? We'll see. It's a slow process, but we have the law on our side, and we have to start somewhere.

I thought I had read somewhere that they have just "decided" to start following the law??

Although haven't they also recently issued directives to NHS Scotland to not comply with the law?

That's why NHS Scotland is on the list.

Just to clarify, I'd like to keep the list to ONLY those services that have been in the news publicly stating that they are not following the law, are disputing the law, or are issuing guidance to staff to ignore the law and/or the guidance.

Let's not speculate.

So assuming no news is good news then.

I think for associations the issue will be finding a willing plaintiff. I know, for example, of a south London-based sports club that is openly and proudly flouting the EA and SJA ruling with 100% backing of their members. So no realistic hope of finding a plaintiff. I suppose you could find a prospective member who could claim indirect discrimination under s101 but it would be a very long shot.

You are making a different hypothetical argument for separate but equal mixed sex provision based on a criteria that isn't a protected characteristic. Other exceptions may be possible, but in this case I think your main problem would be deducing who should and shouldn't use the service, but that is not my problem.

The points I am making are that toilets and changing rooms still have to meet building regulations if they are mixed sex and lack of single sex provision may be discriminatory.

Its human rights law under privacy that trans people shouldn't be forcibly outed or othered so other established legal precedents matter.

The right to privacy is qualified. The GRA has been in place for more than 20 years, and provides multiple examples of 'outing' situations where sex is relevant e.g. inheritance and sport.

I don't think the concept of 'outing' or 'othering' is specifically addressed in the Equality law but anyone with a blue badge or going on maternity leave or using a bus pass is revealing something about themself. To function in society with other people it is necessary to reveal details about your life.

I think you are clutching at straws and you would be better off campaigning for more unisex provision.

Absolutely, but you would be challenging whether the service should be single sex at all. What you can't do is advocate for a mixed sex single sex space.

But you can under certain exceptions as with male children. Once an exception exists it opens the doors for others.

😬Let's hope so.

You might as well argue that because boys under 8 can sometimes use women's changing rooms, men called Keith should also be able to use women's changing rooms. If I were you I would devote my energies to making an argument that has a chance of success.

Oh we're very aware that once a safeguarding loophole exists, TRAs will try everything to exploit it. But thanks for putting it so plainly.

Until then, the law stands. And no one is above the law.

Problem is you don't understand what that law is which is clearly open to interpretation by virtue of rights needing to be balanced AKA proportionality. In other words we don't know yet whether service providers are breaking the law or not until case law provides precedent for public toilets. That service providers make a decision either way doesn't excuse them from being challenged for the reasonableness of their decision. Only a court can decide this.

Saying 'the law is the law' isn't any saying anything when that law is vague & open to interpretation.

Sorry, I meant to add that I don't think it helps to speculate, as we would have no proof of intent or denial. If it's in the news that a service is definitely flouting the law, I'll assume then that there is evidence that this is true.

I started this thread late last night because I felt I needed somewhere to list all the law breakers in one place. I don't intend to start libelling every service out there.

I suspect we might see some changes after 5 August. Might.

ed sp

Whatever. You're wrong. Change the law if you don't like it. I'm done with you.

Many UK universities.

Including mine which is one of the universities trying to close whole departments in the humanities (Music, languages, history) which means effectively sacking mostly women.

But you in the MN Prize for the Best Thread Title Evah!

Yes, I think post-5th August we will find out who is posturing and who really means to break the law.

Or it could be argued that (privacy) outing & othering are already established as anti human rights.

Resorting to infantile arguments because you don't like how the law is supposed to protect everyone won't change the validity of human rights.

It's not 'changing the law' to challenge a service provider's reasoning. That's actually the law in action. A service provider just like anyone else isn't infallible.

This is as silly as saying once an employer makes a decision they believe to be in keeping with the law they can't be challenged.

Do you even know what you are saying?

You would have to reference case law and legislation to explain what you mean.

Age is a personal and sensitive subject, but we may have to reveal it multiple times a day.

Sex is also sometimes relevant.

I wish I had your faith on this.

There will never be a time when men won't be upset by women saying
'Actually, that doesn't work for us'.

Women will always require resources that men don't and it will always be inconvenient for men when women claim them.

I'm reposting the list because the more I read this thread and some of the reactions to it, the more I think you're onto something op.

I think the additional suggestions to the list have been:
Trade unions - which I suggested but I agree with leaving them out at this stage to focus on service providers.
Universities - but I'm not sure which ones?
South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

Apologies if I've missed any out.

The Senedd, still tidiously stamping its rainbow laced boots in defiance, and they're a government FFS.

This thread is an excellent example of its own title.

Some people are absolutely committed to getting men into (what would otherwise be but for their presence) women's spaces, aren't they?