Don't look out of the window

West Midlands Ambulance Service withdraw participation from Birmingham pride to avoid conflicting with "protected beliefs of some people" This is a result of the anti trans movements pushing of trans people out of public life and lawfare to have their bigoted views protected

What an extraordinary day at the Lorna Young vs Manchester City Council employment tribunal. Lorna is taking her former employer, Manchester City Council, to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal on the grounds of religion or belief. She holds gender critical beliefs. It

While the response to my legal challenge against Scope has primarily been: “Good on you for holding them accountable”, there has, inevitably, been some pushback. Mostly from people who appear to believe that being a not-for-profit organisation somehow places a charity beyond scrutiny. So let’s lay out the facts. The not-for-profit choir I founded - which is free for members, generates less than a few thousand pounds a year and operates purely on an expenses-only basis - was removed from Scope’s London Marathon cheer squad. Because of my lawfully held beliefs about biological sex. Scope, by contrast, is a national charity with around £44m annual income, approximately 800 staff and 4,000 volunteers. So it’s not difficult to see the power imbalance here. As a result of Scope’s actions, not only was I personally affected, but multiple choir members were impacted too. People who had done absolutely nothing wrong. Although Scope eventually reinstated the choir’s invitation - the evening before the Marathon - by then the damage had already been done. Only one regular singer felt comfortable enough to join us. I have now seen three public statements from Scope suggesting that I was somehow an “inappropriate” person to volunteer for the charity - despite having done so without issue for two years. I have also seen at least 15 emails - sent to individuals after the reinstatement decision - which continued to suggest my views, or the expression of them, might be upsetting or alienating to others. The apparent basis for this was my public expression of lawful and widely held beliefs: namely that there are two biological sexes and that sex cannot be changed. This is significant. Because if a major national charity believes that stating biological reality is inherently problematic, what message does that send to its own staff and volunteers? Particularly female staff and volunteers concerned about freedom of speech, safeguarding and single-sex spaces? And while Scope does not directly provide intimate care services, organisations of its size and influence help shape wider culture, policy and funding decisions across the disability sector. If Scope’s leadership considers the expression of mainstream beliefs about biological sex to be potentially harmful or inappropriate, what might that mean for disabled women and girls who require same-sex spaces, services or care? None of this means charities should be exempt from accountability. In fact, arguably the opposite is true. Large organisations with significant public influence should be especially careful not to discriminate against people for expressing lawful beliefs protected under the Equality Act. And I think Scope’s own reversal of its original decision demonstrates that protections for those beliefs were not properly upheld in the first place. Choosing not to challenge something doesn’t make the problem disappear. It simply tells organisations that this kind of behaviour - including failing to uphold protections for lawful beliefs under the Equality Act - is acceptable. And it isn’t. Link to Telegraph article below (gift link) 👇