GLP about to waste another load of their money - Round 2 of attacking the ECHR guidance

[Another2Cats]

Very much as the title. I haven't seen another thread on this, but apologies if I missed it.

https://goodlawproject.org/were-supporting-a-legal-challenge-against-the-code-of-practice/

Leigh Day solicitors have sent a letter before action dated 28 July to the ECHR (and also the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government) on behalf of two claimants:

https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Code-of-Practice-PAP-Letter-REDACTED.pdf

The letter gives them 14 days to reply (11th Aug) and state that they will commence proceedings after that date.

It's a very long letter basically saying that organisations can organise services on the basis of gender, in other words anyone who "lives as a woman" is to be included as a woman. And if a woman "lives as a man" then she is to be excluded.

Also some odd argument that this doesn't count as unlawful discrimination because:

"...the relevant comparator in a direct sex discrimination claim for e.g. a cis man who was excluded from a service provided to those who live as woman would be a trans man who was also excluded.

The trans man would be of a different “biological sex” to the claimant, but there would otherwise be no material difference between them as both would be living as men. Under such a policy, both the claimant and the comparator would be excluded and there would be no less favourable treatment of the cis man."

This was the same argument that the Women's Institute raised.

I really don't see this going anywhere but this could be another case to get the popcorn out for and enjoy.

Misrepresentation is a huge part of what they’re doing: they’re trying to make everything seem so complicated that employers and service providers give up on trying to maintain single-sex provisions.

They absolutely rely on complicating things. If they wanted a clear, unequivocal law, they would define what they meant by "woman". They can't, because everyone would be horrified. So they have to be as opaque as possible.

Thanks for this. Akua R goes on to say (my underline):

They're attacking the bit of the Code that says a "trans-inclusive" women's service would be very likely to be direct sex discrimination against men who are excluded. They completely ignore the other multiple ways in which it might amount to unlawful discrimination under the Act.

They seem to be using the exact same arguments that they used during their judicial of the interim guidance a review that they lost on all points because they are misinterpreting the law.
It was both useful and entertaining when the TRAs realised the consequences of that loss and its going to be even funnier and more useful when they lose again 🤣

FGS JoMo just go back to quilting. You aren't good at this

The problem with their argument is section 30 mainly deals with separate sex services which they may not offer to 1 sex, a good example of this would be a cervical screening service that is only offered to women and they dont have a separate male service for cervical screening (its obvious to all why such a service isn't needed but this clause makes it legal).

The other problem is there is not shared protected characteristic between trans identifying men and women nor between trans identifying females and men as neither gender or gender identity are protected characteristics only sex and gender reassignment.
So a group set up for women and trans identifying males that excludes men and trans identifying females would be discriminating against both. Also as the group would already be mixed sex they couldn't fall back on section 30 as the group already functions for both sexes and trans identifying males have nothing in common with women that every other doesn't also have in common.

The consequences of this upcoming loss for the glp is going to reinforce the guidance and whilst I don't expect the TRAs to accept it it wont get near the ECrtHR as they've previously claimed nor can it change the equality act

The glp will be picking up the tab as they've been crowd funding for it for a while

It's a grift. He's good at grifting.

The case will fail, BUT in doing that will further push case law in the direction of reality.

The big problem for our side is a lot of organisations want to be sexist and end single sex spaces. We don't have the resources to quickly do a LOT of cases to take them all down.

GLP is using TA money to help our side. By losing in court again and again, in really stupid ways, it pushes more and more lawyers to see reality. GLP cases are being quoted in judgements. That means that orgs that talk to lawyers get advised you can't break the law on this you will lose. Insurance companies will be saying the same etc.

The entire institutional framework starts to shift.

By ourselves it would take years to do this. The GLP and the SNP and others by being so dumb are speed running the solution for us. They are using TA money to prove women are a thing.

It is a grift, it is dumb, but male arrogance has not for the first time resulted in achieving the exact opposite of what they intended.

When there’s so much going on in the world, why is so much time and money being taken up with ways to break safeguarding rules and boundaries? It’s obscene.

edit: the above regards toilet design. I tried to write something more detailed but am all out of energy today.

My guess is that they're not even doing this with a view to winning but to continue the noise.

I imagine their aim is to keep on finding different ways of shouting, 'This guidance is unworkable' in the hope that - regardless of the truth - more and more people will hear and just remember the 'unworkable' bit. And that, once that's been heard and accepted as fact by enough people, they will move on to calling for the Equality Act to be revisited.

I really think it's a mistake to dismiss them as stupid.

Win or lose, GLP still get to keep 10% of any money donated

Explanatory Note to Schedule 3 Paragraph 30:

744 Paragraph 30 provides that a service provider does not breach the requirement in section 29 not to discriminate in the provision of a service if he or she supplies the service in such a way that it is commonly only used by people with a particular protected characteristic (for example, women or people of Afro-Caribbean descent) and he or she continues to provide that service in that way. If it is impracticable to provide the service to someone who does not share that particular characteristic, a service provider can refuse to provide the service to that person.
Background
745.This is designed to replicate the effect of provisions previously contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equality Act 2006, and extends the clarification they provide across all other protected characteristics for the first time.
Examples

• A hairdresser who provides Afro-Caribbean hairdressing services would not be required to provide European hairdressing services as well. However, if a white English person wanted his hair braided and there was no technical difficulty to prevent that, it would be unlawful for the hairdresser to refuse to provide her services to him.
• A butcher who sells halal meat is not required also to sell non-halal meat or kosher meat. However, if a non-Muslim customer wanted to purchase the meat that was on offer, he could not refuse to sell it to her.

So, if a service provider wants to provide womanly toileting services, which are generally for people with the PC of (female) sex, then it will impracticable to provide them to manly people, but unlawful to turn away people without the PC of (female) sex if they want the womanly service.

🤔

No idea where the kiwi storm came from.

No if the toilet's are for men and women (mostly women) they must be individual rooms with 1 toilet and sink in the room.
If the toilet's are just for women ie single sex no man is allowed in.
You can't have toilet's that are for mostly women and a few men.
Nor is it illegal to turn men regardless of how they identify away from the women's toilets because that is acceptable sex discrimination.
Try reading the specific examples of permitted sex discrimination rather than those for religious and racial discrimination.

I agree, if it fails and continues to fail, it might slow or stop the constant stream of misrepresentation that the law and the SC judgement is not clear.

I was not agreeing with GLP's argument, just saying what I think it is. They are reframing Paragraph 26/7 women-only services and WR1992 women's facilities as 'services generally provided for the use of women, but which can't be refused to men having a need for a 'women's service' (therefore no need to change the infrastructure). Nonsense, of course.

The most important thing about the GLP scam is this: they're not spending their own money, they're spending the money donated by their deluded followers. They have literally millions of pounds in the bank which was just handed to them and they have no incentive to actually win cases, just to start them. The doomed cases they bring generate income, and the income is then spent on... well, that's where it gets interesting. They spend a heck of a lot on money on something called "legal advice" and "legal action" in their company accounts. But there is zero transparency about who is the beneficiary of the huge sums of money they spend.
For a company that goes on and on about transparency, they are very shy about who gets their money.

I agree, I think they're just doing it to keep the unhinged whipped up so the topic doesn't die the death it so rightly deserves.
The more they can keep it in the public square the more they can 'normalise' it, which would undermine the EA.
Their end goal might be to get 'sex' in the EA changed to 'gender', like so many Western Countries have.

They are lawyers after all, and all lawyers think they 'know' how the law should be.

Not as good as he used to be. Trans Reddit are catching on to him.
Maybe he should just go back to bashing foxes in his wife's dressing gown. He's not that good at quilts either.

I wonder who it is that they are trying to confuse? I honestly don't think that the toilets and changing rooms is going to be difficult for service providers to figure out. So it must be about Girl Guides, Women's Institute, Women's yoga classes, Men's sheds etc???

In many ways I would like to agree with your suggestion of the long term.

But the reality is GLP has been losing cases, but somehow (thanks to a compliant media) they are still regarded as being in the fore front.

The 6 councils who have publicly said they will break the law refer to GLP as validating what they are doing.

The whole thing is a fantasy, but sadly the reality that women see and expect just keeps getting brushed aside and the fairy tales become the truth.

I would suggest that what they are doing is using the law to do what a genuine campaign would do, ie engage with the public, lobby parliament, as this is much more fun. Because it keeps putting women's rights in a negative light in the public domain.

The end result could well be that when Labour introduces, which it surely will, some amendment to the EA, most people who will only remember all the righteous preaching from GLP, will just say about day that "equality" was made law.

Yes, Janice Turner’s article about the six London Councils quotes a Lib Dem councillor talking about the need for a new cross party committee to reconsider the Equality Act. I imagine the push for this has already started and I can totally see Andy Burnham agreeing as a sop to his own back benchers.

I haven't had time to read her article in full, but for me it is just so glaringly obvious.

And it isn't just the trans ideologues it is the failure of the media to ever frame any of this about the attack on women rights.

Share token here for the Janice Turner article (There’s a separate thread on it too). I don’t suppose she wrote the headline but I’m alarmed at how many people seem to think it’s all over.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/77fbe275-dc42-4617-9d55-1592d5e1135f?shareToken=e2415dd1a19513c133556ff85259e535

Absolutely this.

I can dismantle Robin Moira White’s arguments very easily with facts and evidence

edit: there is occasionally something Robin says that is correct