JKR offers to fund any nurse or female patient legal fees

[Imdunfer]

JKR, in the wake of health authorities failing to implement the single sex space laws, has offered to fund the legal case of any female nurse or patient who wants to sue their health authority.

I love that woman!

Me too

We're going to have one solitary woman, who by amazing luck ended up with unlimited money, having to spend millions upon millions to get the major institutions of the state, after obstructing all the way, to eventually and extremely reluctantly abide by the laws of the land as enacted by Parliament.

If she has to do this herself, with a rag-tag group of others pitching in, while governments do nothing, well, except to obstruct on their own accounts, then I cannot say how disgusted I will be with this state of affairs.

Yep. I agree @nauticant - how shameful that our fundamental institutions are flouting the law and letting women down so openly and brazenly. It shouldn’t be down to JKR to fight this.

It really absolutely shouldn't be but I am incredibly glad that she is in this fight with us.

I agree with you entirely except on two points - firstly I think JKR is tenacious rather than just lucky - and secondly I'd hope she doesn't have to "spend" all that money because if these cases go to court, I think the courts would rule that the costs be paid because it's so cut and dried. So really it should hopefully be more like "lend"

She's amazing, one of the only people I genuinely admire.

I think this is just an extension of the fund she set up last year.

But obviously glad that she has made it clear individual women can apply.

See https://jkrwf.org/

(The web site isn't for general enquiries etc., but direct access to a process to see if you are eligible to apply for funding.)

You approve of taking money from an institution which can't pay for sexually abused kids to have psychiatric counselling?

Which practices corridor care because there's no cash to pay for extra staff?

Which can't implement this guidance because it's already at breaking point regarding number of staffed beds? Right before the winter bugs hit?

Jesus. Wards are heavily supervised and all have male staff. The moment you can leave your bed and walk they start the process of discharging you. And Intensive Care has so few beds it cannot possibly follow this - one more time - guidance.

A billionaire using her cash like this - instead of, say, helping CAMHS save those raped kids - is obscene.

It is NHS managers and politicians jobs to protect money for the NHS. They could do this by obeying the law and not promoting this insane ideology then billionnaires wouldn't need to get involved. I am grateful for everything JKR does to help support women and girls.

Yet more emotionally manipulative reasoning. What a surprise.

Seems to also miss the well publicised charities that the person being labelled obscene is also funding providing services and support for children and at least one charity providing services to female rape victims.

But don’t let facts stop you from name calling a woman who doesn’t agree with you.

Either way, the NHS is not for a private individual to prop up. Particularly one that also pays the taxes expected of her.

I remember when JK Rowling entered this debate. She has gone above and beyond to centre female people and has been indefatigable.

Warrior.

Absolutely agree. That we live in a world where one, deranged, billionaire can spew money at people to help them directly harm critical health infrastructure simply because said institution isn't interpreting the guidance in the way said deranged billionaire wants is, frankly, immoral.

And those who support JKR's actions should be ashamed.

The law is clear.

if nhs trusts do the morally and legally correct thing, namely follow the EHRC guidance, it won’t cost them any money at all. It’s the choice to contest legal action unnecessarily, as both NHS Fife and NHS Darlington did, that wastes taxpayers’ money.

Like many people, you're getting confused between law and guidance, quite possibly because your GC ideological desperation leads you to interpret things in a manner you'd like to be true, regardless of the actual facts.

The facts are that a trans person is not committing any legal offence by entering a bathroom not designated for their biological sex. The act is not against the statue of the law (as it currently stands) and is therefore not illegal, however desperately you want it to be.

Guidance says that where toilets are genuinely provided as single-sex facilities, they should be provided according to biological sex. Providers can also offer single-user/unisex toilets as an alternative.

The legal consequences primarily concern how the venue provides and manages its services, rather than giving police a power to arrest someone simply for using a particular toilet.

"Morally" and "legally" are very rarely the same thing.

Legal has a very clear, factual basis.
Moral, in this instance, is your emotive, personal misunderstanding of the law and subsequent rage that it doesn't quite match up to how you feel it should be interpreted.

No one is saying you can’t have mixed sex hospital wards if that is appropriate. ITU had always been mixed sex. But if you have a ward or bed bay which is designated single sex such then you need to stick to it. Which was standard practice before all this. I think most hospitals managed to function like this for decades.

JKR is a fabulous woman to help face up to lazy weak institutions and screaming threatening activists when she could just turn a blind eye and wallow in adoration and enjoy her millions. I’m forever grateful for her support - and would add it was her genius mainly as well as tenacity and a bit of luck that got her there.
Is there any other example of a bazillionaire supporting a social justice campaign at great personal cost to themselves? I can’t think of a single one - she’s uniquely brilliant and so much braver than any of her detractors.

The legal consequences primarily concern how the venue provides and manages its services, rather than giving police a power to arrest someone simply for using a particular toilet.

You seem lost/confused. This whole thread and the funding is about suing the providers, not arresting the men.

(Somewhat off-topic, following the derail - A man in a female space has to leave - if the venue doesn't tell him to, they're liable. If he doesn't leave then they're responsible. They can get police enforcement by telling him to leave the premises, and if he refuses, they can involve the police for trespass. Once they've gone that far, if necessary, the legal culpability has shifted to the man, otherwise it would remain on them for failing to enforce/report.)

So you also disagree with anyone suing the NHS for malpractice or negligence? After all, that will increase their insurance cost (what pays the NHS side of these lawsuits) just as much as anyone suing because the NHS refuse to obey UK law.

I suspect you're clever enough to realise that suing a service provider for malpractice and/or negligence are not the same thing as suing a service provider with funds provided by deranged billionaire simply because said service provider doesn't ideologically align with your misinterpretation of the actual law.

I further suspect you're grasping desperately at this shoddy comparison because you realise that your whole stance on this matter is emotive, ideological, and wrong.

your whole stance on this matter is emotive, ideological, and wrong.

deranged billionaire

There is no ‘interpreting’ needed. The law says single sex spaces should be based on biological sex. Institutions just need to abide by the law.

Ironic you use the word ‘deranged’ twice. I think this is a case of using an insult that’s actually more a reflection on the original issue.

your misinterpretation of the actual law.

This would be for not following your interpretation of the actual law, which matches ours here:

'Guidance says that where toilets are genuinely provided as single-sex facilities, they should be provided according to biological sex. Providers can also offer single-user/unisex toilets as an alternative.'

(But covering all single-sex facilities/services, not just toilets).

What else do you think we're suing them for, wrongly?