@AudreySuffolk @hightreebud This is a problem with law firms that advertise themselves as specialists in employment law; very few of them actually specialise in Equality law, and rather than admit it, they pretend otherwise.
English
🇮🇱🇬🇧Michael Lee Taylor🇬🇧🇮🇱
6.9K posts
🇮🇱🇬🇧Michael Lee Taylor🇬🇧🇮🇱
@ThatcheriteLee
Computer, Network & Software Engineer 👨💻 | Thatcherite 🇬🇧 #Brexiteer ✌️
Katılım Mayıs 2010
1.5K Takip Edilen1.2K Takipçiler
@hightreebud is absolutely right. The Employment Code of Practice isn’t being amended. It’s the Code of Practice re services, public functions and associations. And the FWS case is relevant to five PCs, namely sex, SO, GR, R&B and M&P
Trina@hightreebud
As a law firm @SintonsLaw you might note the EHRC has nothing to say about "gender identity", it's not a protected characteristic. Nor is the guidance for employers. Importantly, the UKSC FWS ruling was about the definition of sex in the EA, which you entirely fail to mention.
English
Or you could read the April ruling and realise that "the existing legal consensus" in the UK does not say what you think it does...
Oh, and CEDAW.
Naomi 💕@DaomiLove
@NubiBlue @WokeBloke4646 @ForWomenScot We agree no men in women's spaces. That's why I specified: Trans women are women, Trans men are men. This position is upheld by int'l bodies. My view reflects the existing legal and professional consensus protecting all women. You won't even read something that contradicts yours.
English
@MrTCHarris Except for many left-wing MPs, most trans activists and a certain Scottish judge.
English
@LsMc459856 @AudreySuffolk Yes, the SC did give a definitive answer, but that doesn't mean every case will get the right result the first time around.
If the lower courts misinterpret it, then it'll require an appeal court to correct it.
That's all she means.
English
@AudreySuffolk I thought the SC had already given those definitive answers?
Are you saying an appeal court re the SP judgement, could overturn the SC ruling?
English
This is legally inaccurate. Neither the Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board nor Kelly v Leonardo cases are binding precedent as both first instance cases. Neither in my view successfully grappled with the essential factors which lead to society having separate changing/ toilet
Lisa Mackenzie@lnmackenzie1
Statement from the Equality Network regarding the Peggie judgment. Claims that the judgments in Peggie and Kelly trump the ruling of the Supreme Court. Astonishing. equality-network.org/a-short-summar…
English
It is true to say that no PC trumps another in all circumstances, but that's why we have exemptions to make clear the circumstances in which one PC does succeed another.
It seems already clear from the two cases we've had come out this week from Scotland that the Scottish ETs are continuing to get the law wrong.
We've yet to see any ET judgments from the rest of the UK, but if that trend continues and the ETAs and COA don't sort it out, I think we'll likely have to ask the SC for another judgment.
English
If this were true, why then is ‘gender identity’ - which isn’t even a characteristic! - clearly given primacy every where and all the time?
This raises a deeply concerning question as to the extent to which AI was used to write this judgment. Reliance on fake quotes should be the first and only ground of appeal.
Maya Forstater@MForstater
One of the many things wrong with the Sandie Peggie judgment. This "quote" from my judgment doesn't come from my judgment. It is completely made up. 🤯
English
This is crazy and nonsensical.
When toilets or changing rooms are being cleaned or worked on by a tradesperson, they are closed with a sign outside and sometimes with a barrier preventing entry.
How on earth the judge could compare that to when they are open and actually in use is beyond me.
English
This is why we have appellate courts, in this case potentially three.
Intellectual rigour is expected in the EAT, likely in the Court of Appeal & just shy of a certainty in the SC.
The "male plumber" is a canard.
My old firm had signs warning eg "opposite sex cleaner present".
Dennis Noel Kavanagh@Jebadoo2
An approach that is certainly fresh and somewhat eccentric as compared to the Supreme Court’s crystal clarity on this subject.
English
@AudreySuffolk @Amanda2010___ Fair enough. Saying that the SC is ‘clear’ about this remains a stretch however!
English
Good point and interesting thread. It is impossible to change sex. But. The power of testosterone does mean that women who take it will undergo irreversible and significant changes to their bodies and often ‘pass’ very convincingly as men. I still don’t understand the SC point that they therefore should not use female facilities. So where do they go?
We need to discuss this. Simply repeating ‘there is no such thing as trans’ is the ‘no debate’ of the GC movement and it’s harmful.
English
Point her in the direction of the Court of Appeal judgment in Higgs v Farmor’s School.
“The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act.”
English
I’ve received an email from a woman this morning that’s made me feel sick.
I can’t share much until I’ve spoken to her directly - but here’s what I can say, without making her identifiable:
She posted something ‘gender critical’ from a personal social media account a few weeks back.
She was then doxxed - her employer’s name was published online, along with threats to “let them know” about her supposed ‘bigotry’.
Now she's received a message that’s left her feeling her employer has been contacted - and that she’s being quietly warned to fall into line.
This issue matters deeply to her - she’s a survivor of domestic abuse. She's also the sole earner in her household - now fearful of losing her job.
It’s just sickening.
And yet, so many still look away and tell themselves this is no big deal. And that women should just be more 'kind' etc
English
@DPJHodges Nah, if they do say anything at all, it'll be how disappointed they are that their pleas were ignored.
English
Right. We've heard for 48 hours from the Prime Minister, Home Secretary and other senior politicians that these marches shouldn't attended. They have been. We've had Swastikas, pro-Hamas posters, pro-terror posters and calls for Intifada. They pledged they would protect Jews. So what next. Anything? Anything at all?
Chris Hobbs@obbsie
Well, the cordons have been lifted and the pro-Pallys meeting is going ahead opposite Downing St in the usual place. Conditions which, if they applied, have clearly been broken. Conditions now (still) in place. All a little confusing
English
@DPJHodges And organising such a protest is also a criminal offence, so why aren't the organisers being arrested?
English
OK, can someone explain this. The demonstration tomorrow is in direct support of Palestine Action, a group Keir Starmer has proscribed. So why are the Prime Minister and Home Secretary implying people still have a right to conduct this protest. They literally don't. By law.
English
@SVPhillimore And get proper legal advice rather than asking Google and trade unions.
English
No one is asking anyone to be aware of everything. But if you are responsible for employees you do need to keep up with employment and discrimination law.
SEEN in Journalism@JournalismSEEN
😮 Here’s a top line. Vice President of HR not aware of the Mara Forstater judgment
English
@AVintenAuthor On Reddit, the first few comments are of police officers wanting the BBC undercover reporter prosecuted.
English
Ex officers across the internet today desperately trying to justify the horrific police sexism, racism and brutality exposed by the BBC.
Alcohol doesn’t turn me into a racist, because I’m not a racist.
#Panorama
#UndercoverInThePolice
English
@QcWynter Didn't the @BarristerSecret mention it back in 2018?
English
As a matter of interest and because whoever came up with it deserves recognition, does anyone know who coined the excellent term "Bananarama Defence"?
I would very much like to know.
Thank you.
English
@QcWynter Their legal team also claimed the SC ruling only had a narrow meaning in relation to members on Scottish public sector boards and had nothing to do with toilets and other single sex spaces.
English
..the way that you do it") defence.
4. It seems fair surmise to suggest that NHS Fife's legal team knew that this change in policy was coming.
5. Tribunal judge said "negligent".
6 I go with top down incompetence, followed by legal firefighting.
Shambles.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/0…
English
NHS Fife now says that its staff should use the toilets which accord with their sex (I refuse to use the redundant word, "biological").
What does this mean in legal terms?
1. It signals acceptance of the SC judgment.
2. Bearing in mind that SC ruling stated the law as it has..
English
@JournalismSEEN They seem to have been stonewalled.
Remember, they claimed the ruling doesn't become law until parliament approves it.
It appears that some MPs and journalists have believed this lie.
English
If you’re a journalist who believes the Supreme Court judgement will not apply if parliament rejects EHRC guidance, please get in touch.
Same, if you think it doesn’t apply until the guidance is approved.
We’re keen to understand who told you and what made it credible.
English
Correct, only amending the Equality Act or new legislation can change that.
Changing the guidance in a way that is incompatible with the Supreme Court ruling will make the guidance itself unlawful.
They could veto the guidance, but that will just mean organisations will be left to seek out more of their own legal advice.
English
@polblonde @Gillian_Philip MPs can't veto single sex spaces as the article suggests, surely? Voting down the guidance doesn't change the law.
English
This is scandalpus - it's the law. Labour can't be trusted to protect women's rights.
New trans rules go too far, says Labour deputy leadership frontrunner
telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/…
English
@DPJHodges It is within the law as case law (Scottow-v-CPS) states free speech includes the right to abuse eachother.
English
If he takes down his abusive banner he can say what he likes, within the law.
English
I'll share. Good for the police. Keep at it guys.
Paul Golding@PaulGolding
👮 STILL BEING DETAINED AFTER ONE HOUR IM ALTRINCHAM FOR BANNERS THAT SAY ‘KEIR STARMER IS A WANKER’. THE POLICE ARE THREATENING TO REMOVE THEM! PLEASE SHARE!
English
A minority kicking off and acting like idiots does not represent the vast majority lawfully and peacefully exercising their right to protest.
By all means, criticise the actions of the minority objectively and reasonably, separating the bad from the good.
However, tarring the vast majority with the same brush is wrong and needs to stop.
English
We we have been told all week the Unite the Kingdom march was representative of the new mainstream Right in Britain. Is that still the case.
Metropolitan Police@metpoliceuk
We continue to see significant aggression directed at officers by Unite the Kingdom protesters. We have deployed additional officers with protective equipment in multiple locations, supported by police horses, to deal with the disorder.
English
@bindelj @misssamsmith Only SIA-licensed security, which must have their licence on display at all times, can deny entry or throw you out.
English
I was thrown out of Pride in Surrey today (along with my producer @misssamsmith) at the behest of the MP for Guildford, who got very defensive when I asked her about safeguarding shortcomings. We are researching the Pride in Surrey scandal for a podcast series coming soon.
English