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.

The fact that the GLP’s and RMW’s solutions conflict just shows what a mess things get when the realities of health and safety are ignored.

Both are good at ignoring health and safety in designs in different ways.

The grift continues

I would like add that Phillipson, had lawyers go through the guidance with a fine tooth comb, and did not table it for a full year, when the possibility of finding a way around the SC definition of what sex means could not be found.

I also believe that subsequent to this discovery they looked at the possibility of tweaking the GRA, and failing that rewriting the EQA in such a way to include men dressed as women, for reasons too long to list, that would not be possible either.

But not least because of women's convention right.

No domestic government has anywhere else to go with it.

GLP are doomed to fail. I doubt they will get past the permission stage.

Agree. Labour are clearly not going to attack the equality act. If they were they would already be doing it. Why would they want to follow in the doomed footsteps of the SNP? The Good Law Project's continuing failures is another reason not to shift ground.

If Burnham wanted to do anything like that he would not have kept Shabana Mahmood as Home Secretary as her opinions as a supporter of Labour Women's Declaration are well known.

We can see Labour's plan as preserving single sex spaces, BUT to mollify TAs by permitting the puberty blockers experiment and the dreadfully flawed conversion therapy bill. The conversion therapy bill was an opportunity to bring in full scale gender nonsense by the back door, but it doesn't even commit to that though it should be stopped.

It is the same policy Starmer had. It serves to upset both those who know biology is real and the trans activists as well.

The GLP losing every single Trans court case they have ever tried over the last 5+ years does not help the TAs in the long run. The publicity they get mainly serves to get GLP more money. Moreover it shifts TA money from potentially more dangerous locations to trying court cases which if they fail reinforce the pro-reality position.

Well exactly. They're acting as if the current captured Labour Government WANTED to do this. When the obvious reality is that they tried every which way to avoid it and ultimately came up with nothing

If they couldn't find a way around it, certainly no one else will.