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!

Repeating variants of "it's the law" without having actually read - or understood - the actual law doesn't make something correct, no matter how desperately you want it to.

Easy way for the NHS to save money would be to actually implement the law and avoid being sued

What's going on here?

The whole time after the FWS the key point for delaying implementation was "waiting for the new guidance" - and now when it is out we hear "it is only a guidance"?

So law wasn't enough, court claryifying the law wasn't enough and now goverment's implementation guide (saying the same thing) isn't enough either?

The point, which I can see does need explaining to you again, is that the NHS is following the law. Absolutely nothing, to the best of our knowledge, that the NHS is currently doing is in actual, verifiable, factual breach of the law.

You understand the problem here, don't you?

If there is nothing against the law, why are the nurses winning lawsuits?

You seem to be artificially limiting the ‘law’ to criminal law when you try to deflect into ‘offence’

And I think you mistake who is desperate ideologically driven group.

The law is clear. That is what should be being followed regardless of whether someone believes the guidance is useful or not. Any male person who accesses a female single sex provision can be banned and excluded from a venue if they refuse to follow the policy of the organisation who manages the venue. And the organisation must follow the law as regards to provision of facilities.

Workplaces, which also covers the workplace of nursing staff, do have an obligation when they reach a particular size. And under that law, nurses can take their employers to tribunal to get the law enforced.

There is also no moral justification for the NHS to not enforce single sex provisions ‘because they have no funds’. What other employment provisions should the NHS be excused from following just because of ‘no funds’. It is not the moral argument you have relied on.

You seem to be one who avoids facts and is ideologically driven, so I just assume you are projecting now.

The ‘law’ does not merely cover criminal law. But I suspect you have had this explained to you in the past and just ignored it.

IF, the NHS is following the law as you claim, then they’ve nothing to worry about.
Being tested in Court would only prove your point wouldn’t it?

You understand that I’m sure.

Heartily agree. These excuses are getting tedious.

I used to get this when my kids were trying to delay bedtime.

Incorrect.

It is clear from the SC ruling that any exclusion of a trans person from single sex services has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Blanket bans - which the GC ideological captives interpret the law as being - simply do not meet that test.

The ruling also said trans people would not be disadvantaged. The EHRC CoP fails to meet those requirements.

Asking a trans person to use a third toilet would be discrimination, unless there was a trans female and trans male toilet, as trans people would be being asked to use a mixed toilet but cis people would get a single sex one .

Asking a trans people to use a third toilet would out them as trans and breach their human rights, and in the case of asking someone with a GRC would result in the person asking facing a criminal charge that can lead to imprisonment.
Not a single trans person, I have spoken to, is intending to comply with the EHRC farcical CoP because -

1. it is clearly illegal and against the recent HC ruling by judge Swift, were contrary to the EHRC CoP he ruled that alowing a trans woman to use the facilities that matches her gender would not be indirect discrimination against cis men.
2. a trans person does not break any laws by using facilities that matches their gender.
3. a bigot that harasses anyone in a in a single sex facility will quickly find themselves facing a judge for that harassment.
4. the CoP is facing a least 2 legal challenges.
5. trans people are obviously going to use the facilities that match their gender presentation because it is too dangerous to do otherwise.

Of course, I suspect you have had this explained to you in the past and just ignored it.

Always the desperate swerve to toilets - no mention of hospital wards, showers, changing rooms .There's a reason for that.

The NHS is spending millions on DEI stuff - so much of it completely divotced from any impact on patient care (tho numerous colourful lanyards, flags, crossings and paint visible).
The men must have access to women's wards policies (based on the Stonewall fake law) that have contributed to women being assaulted and raped in hospital include a number of Trusts who wrote policies to ensure that male sex offenders could also have access to vulnerable women in wards.
That's how fucked up the NHS is about the demands of predatory men.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/trans-sex-offenders-can-go-on-womens-wards-hospitals-advise-0fmbhm3bn

archive.ph/6PUIm

,

Bollocks.

She’s amazing.

It i exactly the same. Both are suing because the NHS did something wrong. Both cost the NHS money. You actually think you can just ignore the law as an employer or service provider? Of course not. Ignoring laws just because you don't like them, can land you in court.

All this emotive language because you feel women shouldn't have the human right to dignity, safety and privacy.

Ahh, the well-thought out, expertly reasoned, and intelligently crafted response of the GC cult.

If you are going to respond at all to the long statements with all those words, do at least try to read and understand them first, hmmm? It's likely to make you look marginally less of an imbecile.

Howse that proportionate argument working for you?

She is certainly egregious, I'll grant you that.

"How's", not "Howse".

There's no shame in admitting you're being faced with points you can't counter.

There is, perhaps, rather more shame in derailing a thread. Best to try and get back on topic, hmmm?

You're the one who doesn't understand the actual law, so I'd be careful about throwing insults!

Facilities which are provided as single sex are based on biological sex, that was the SC judgment.

A provider can provide single user / unisex facilities.

Nobody has the right to use the facilities of the opposite sex. The SC judgment even covered transmen who pass.

I'd suggest you go back to re-read it, but I suspect you've never read it, you've just read an inaccurate summarisation of it.

Sorry (not sorry), lads, you can't go in the ladies!

I read your words, and instead of repeating the excellent responses by others, I chose to summarise my reply with one word.

I thought it was succinct and to the point. And, more importantly, correct! Unlike our legally incorrect visitor.

Trans ‘women’ are men.

The money is set aside already. Because they expect to be sued - mainly because of botched maternity and l&d care.

It was the perfect dismissal of complete nonsense.

every word of it utter bollocks, albeit carefully crafted to look superficially plausible to people who don’t know the law and haven’t read the SC judgment.

@KindViper women have rights. Get over it.

Given it is abundantly clear that posters like yourself need things repeated to them several times, I refer you to one of my earlier posts:

"Repeating variants of "it's the law" without having actually read - or understood - the actual law doesn't make something correct, no matter how desperately you want it to."

We both know you have neither read the laws in question, nor would properly understand them if you did.