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

Worst of all it plainly shows the misogyny at the heart of our taxpayer-funded institutions.

This is what makes me so angry that I had to start a late-night thread about it!

(Be careful what you wish for!) 😆

Good summary, thanks. I've got to do some work sometime today, but I'll be back later.

Just a reminder to everyone: please keep the examples to those services that have been in the news and/or noted on FWR with evidence/links. There are lots of examples if you go back through the threads, but I only managed to go back as far as page 7 on FWR last night.

The tribunal threads are especially useful.

(personal anecdotes of people's workplaces are useful examples of organizations flouting the law, but, with the best will in the world, we cannot prove this)

Thanks!

This (from the Lambeth Council thread) is what I posted last night just before I decided to start The List (just to give you an indication of how angry I am and the extent of what women are dealing with):

It's misogyny we are fighting. "Trans" or "Omnicause" or "RSOH" is just a smokescreen.
**
Lambeth Council wants to break the law because the law states that women have rights. And they don't want women telling them what they can or can't do. It's women's fault we have this law, anyway. And so women are also now responsible for the fact that Lambeth has to break the law.
**
Nevermind that the law is also about men having rights, disabled people having rights, Jewish people having rights, Zoroastrian people having rights, "gender reassigned" people having rights...
**
It's just the women we hate, so they can't have the rights they're entitled to have by law. So, we'll just break that part of the law. The part about the women.

As Faye RC on her case thread said, NHS England has quietly rewritten their policy for staff following losing that case. Here’s hoping they produce patient guidelines too.

I'm not sure whether you're including employers per se or not, but I think that you should, if we can point to hard evidence. Their Code of Practice is yet to be updated, but the correct interpretation of the Workplace Regulations 1992 was very recently clarified in R v EHRC.

Which is to say, employers were confused, because they thought 'sex' in WR1992 meant acquired gender where applicable: they no longer have that excuse.

I don't disagree about private sector employers running out of excuses. I think though that there's something so cheeky fuckerish about organisations taking public money while defying the law that I'd support shining the spotlight on on them to start with. I'm not the op though so it's not my call.

@Floisme @theilltemperedmonsterjust on a bit of a lunch break.

I don't think I had even decided in my head who should be included on the list last night, I was so angry. I think it was Lambeth Council's statement which tipped me over the edge, and I started going back through recent threads, because I knew that there were more councils saying the same. So I started focusing on public services.

But, now that I think about it, yes, to me there is something especially vile about a public service that will happily acccept women as members of the public when they want our tax money, but will then use our money to tell us that we are not valuable members of the public when we want our legal rights upheld. THAT pisses me off!

Hopefully, in the long run, this List of Public Services Who Can't Be Bothered To Obey The Law will be short. That's what I'm hoping for. I'd prefer there not be a list at all. But, I would like to keep the public service focus, because, if for no other reason, they are using OUR MONEY to fight these court cases!

It would be useful if one of you, or anyone else, started another thread for the private sector. No doubt there would be a list!

Add Northern Ireland government, public sector, NGOs, and the NI Equality and Human Rights Commission to the list.

We're having to wait till December for an NI High Court judgement (case brought by our Equality Commission) to give an opinion as to whether the Supreme Court judgement in the For Women Scotland case applies in NI or not.

No they can't. They could theoretically try to insist that they are the correct sex and were excluded unfairly on that basis. But it'd be up to them to prove it in court.

Trans people don't have the right to use opposite single sex spaces - because no one does.

You can't go to court to sue for a privilege that you want that no one else has.

You can't go to court to sue for a privilege that you want that no one else has.

What an excellent way to phrase that! I don't think I've ever heard it set out like that before, thanks.

Of course, one could try to sue for a privilege, but I doubt any judge or court would let it get as far as an actual court hearing.

St Mungo's homeless charity

Why should anyone be seeking to undermine spaces that are intended for the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls?

Lightroom Kings Cross London - big bank of mixed sex toilets in a room that's down a corridor, behind a door, shared sinks

... sorry mine aren't public sector

What our visitor doesn't seem to appreciate is that the whole question, of whether a transwoman can access a women-only service, is not governed by anti-discrimination law (including considerations of proportionality) at all.

The admission of small boys (and babies, cleaners, plumbers, and emergency workers) is a pragmatic voluntary concession by the service provider, which, according to Swift J, does not vitiate the single-sex nature of the service.

The TW has no standing to sue for admission – although he can sue if left without provision by lack of a suitable alternative such as an enclosed single-user service.

If they do let him in though, every single female service user can sue for indirect sex-discrimination.

I'm not sure these institutions have quite worked this out yet. If they're worried about being sued, they're going about this all wrong.

Of course, one could try to sue for a privilege, but I doubt any judge or court would let it get as far as an actual court hearing

I would certainly hope not. It'd be bloody ridiculous. I can't see any lawyers trying to take that one to court in the first place.
Well ... maybe the Fox Basher. 😂

Yes, very good of the GLP to do that!

Great post 👏

I would include charities.

I think that would demand Extra Popcorn! Let's hope someone tries:

"Our case is that we should have this because I WANNIT!"

Ah Jolyon. Always good value for entertainment. 🍿

If they are receiving any public funding, I would think that counts as public?

South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils

https://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/vale-of-white-horse-district-council/welcoming-and-inclusive-statement/

They are very #Sad that they are going to have to follow the law, but have been reassuring everyone except women that they are "inclusive" and will be approaching Government now to see what funds are available for them to make so many, expensive adaptations that it just doesn't bear thinking about! O woe is they!