Why do you think SO many people - EDI 'experts', politicians and even certain professors of law get the law so wrong on the issue of SSS? Is it incorrect guidance issued by the likes of Stonewall or is it that the law is not clear enough?
It seems to the average layperson (like me) that the task of weighing competing demands of the various protected characteristics within the Equality Act can be a mind boggling challenge. Is the act unworkable? How might it be reformed to function more effectively?
I found your thoughts on the Tickle / Giggle case very informative.
If it isn't a terrible breach of professional etiquette, I'd love to know how Naomi would have approached the case. Also, I've noticed that in recent interviews Sall has mentioned that a women who identified as a man would not be excluded from the app - is that an indication of the line that will be taken at the appeal?
Re Regulation 24 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992: you can't be clearer Michael but whenever it is raised the usual suspects chime in with qualifications, obfustications etc. For example, that the Regs must be read in the light of P v S & CCC (1996) ECJ, Goodwin & I v UK (2002) ECHR, the GRAct 2004, & the Eq Act 2010, and that as 'mere regulations' they don't override Acts etc , even that the service provider provisions of the EqA apply. Assuming I limit the matter to employers who have changing rooms limited to employees who have to change at work - the question is - is there a definitive authority on the primacy of Regulation 24 in this context?
This is a general question, intended to be considered in general terms rather than with reference to ongoing litigation!
The GMC maintains that there is no obligation on doctors to disclose their sex to patients, and has stated that this detail is not considered relevant for patients to give informed consent. (I am paraphrasing - I'm not sure if links are allowed?) This statement was made in response to an FOI request. In fact, the GMC's current general guidelines on consent do not mention sex or gender at all. Sex and gender are also not mentioned in the guidelines for consent for intimate procedures.
NHS guidelines (I think these are called dignity in the workplace, or something similar) also state that HCPs are not obliged to disclose their sex to patients.
Whilst recognising that the NHS guidelines reflect the organisation's responsibilities to their employees rather than patients, it is interesting that neither policy provides any meaningful guidance for practitioners and mangers about how to respond to situations where a patient requests care from a practitioner of the same sex.
For those of us concerned about both patient autonomy, and about clinicians' right to privacy in the workplace (including reasonable guidance about where this right may be limited if in conflict with a patient's right to autonomy), what is a sensible plan of action? For example, both the GMC and NHS are public bodies and may be subject to judicial review if their actions are not lawful. Is their scope (whilst recognising the cost implications!) for judicial review of GMC and NHS guidelines about consent?
A friend's daughter is currently taking her GCSEs and wants to be a barrister. I've think I've overheard Naomi saying she was rather fed up with her work before her recent GC cases. What advice can she give to my 16 year old please?
Despite spending a disproportionate amount in Scottish tribunals of late, any thoughts on how both E&W and Scottish employment tribunals will change as a result of unprecedented public interest? They are clearly a little uncomfortable with the parade coming to town, but they need to ensure open justice is put in to action not just leave it to be an aspiration.
And if I'm allowed a second question - I appreciate that you can't discuss the Sandie Peggie case itself, but I wonder whether you would be able to talk about the press coverage and public interest in it. Its quality (or not!), its quantity, whether this level of interest and coverage is help or hindrance to either side and/or to the process of justice in principle, that sort of thing
Two arguments made in favour of repeal of the GRA are that it allows falsification of sex on official documents, and that one cannot request evidence that a GRC is held. How can these issues be addressed without repeal of the GRA?
Multiple Universities have Trans Inclusion Policies that suggest single sex spaces can become mixed sex on the basis of self ID and quote the Equality Act 2010 is support of this. Thoughts on the risk and origin of this? but specifically the position of a student challenging this as opposed to a member of staff - excerpt from a policy available on a uni website today:
Staff, students and visitors to the University, who have transitioned, are transitioning or intending to transition from one sex to the other, have the legal right to use the facilities relevant to the sex they identify with. This protection is provided by the Equality Act 2010.
For those who are gender non-conforming, the University has a range of facilities across the campus that are gender neutral. The University Estate Strategy aims to widen the availability of gender-neutral facilities as refurbishment or rebuild of University premises are undertaken. Those who are gender non-conforming do not have protection under the Equality Act 2010 and where gender neutral facilities are not available, should use facilities in line with the sex which they were registered as at birth.
Gender reassignment and transitioning IS NOT a disability and no one who has transitioned, or is gender non-conforming, should be expected to use the disabled access facilities unless they have a disability.
How does having multiple respondents in an employment tribunal affect the final judgement? Are there multiple judgements, one for each respondent, or a single overarching judgement? Similarly, if damages are payable are all respondents collectively responsible, or are damages awarded per respondent? Thanks
With monotonous regularity, individuals who've stated facts or expressed legitimate GC views are rounded up by the police, hauled into custody and interrogated because of the spurious necessity for a 'fast and effective investigation'. Utterly predictably, after being released under investigation, some (considerable) time later it's NFA (no further action) presumably because the police have been told by the CPS they're nowhere near the threshold for prosecution. At what point do the 'suspects' have a claim for unlawful arrest/detention? Surely the police can't rely on their own ignorance of Article 10 etc as a defence? Tim Miller
Hi all - just to be clear, we can’t comment on Peggie v NHS Fife but can talk about other cases that have already been decided or general topics.
You have set out clearly employers' legal requirement to provide single sex spaces.
Is the situation as clear cut with service providers - for example toilets in cafes or changing rooms in sports clubs or clothes retailers?
Why do you think SO many people - EDI 'experts', politicians and even certain professors of law get the law so wrong on the issue of SSS? Is it incorrect guidance issued by the likes of Stonewall or is it that the law is not clear enough?
It seems to the average layperson (like me) that the task of weighing competing demands of the various protected characteristics within the Equality Act can be a mind boggling challenge. Is the act unworkable? How might it be reformed to function more effectively?
I found your thoughts on the Tickle / Giggle case very informative.
If it isn't a terrible breach of professional etiquette, I'd love to know how Naomi would have approached the case. Also, I've noticed that in recent interviews Sall has mentioned that a women who identified as a man would not be excluded from the app - is that an indication of the line that will be taken at the appeal?
Re Regulation 24 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992: you can't be clearer Michael but whenever it is raised the usual suspects chime in with qualifications, obfustications etc. For example, that the Regs must be read in the light of P v S & CCC (1996) ECJ, Goodwin & I v UK (2002) ECHR, the GRAct 2004, & the Eq Act 2010, and that as 'mere regulations' they don't override Acts etc , even that the service provider provisions of the EqA apply. Assuming I limit the matter to employers who have changing rooms limited to employees who have to change at work - the question is - is there a definitive authority on the primacy of Regulation 24 in this context?
This is a general question, intended to be considered in general terms rather than with reference to ongoing litigation!
The GMC maintains that there is no obligation on doctors to disclose their sex to patients, and has stated that this detail is not considered relevant for patients to give informed consent. (I am paraphrasing - I'm not sure if links are allowed?) This statement was made in response to an FOI request. In fact, the GMC's current general guidelines on consent do not mention sex or gender at all. Sex and gender are also not mentioned in the guidelines for consent for intimate procedures.
NHS guidelines (I think these are called dignity in the workplace, or something similar) also state that HCPs are not obliged to disclose their sex to patients.
Whilst recognising that the NHS guidelines reflect the organisation's responsibilities to their employees rather than patients, it is interesting that neither policy provides any meaningful guidance for practitioners and mangers about how to respond to situations where a patient requests care from a practitioner of the same sex.
For those of us concerned about both patient autonomy, and about clinicians' right to privacy in the workplace (including reasonable guidance about where this right may be limited if in conflict with a patient's right to autonomy), what is a sensible plan of action? For example, both the GMC and NHS are public bodies and may be subject to judicial review if their actions are not lawful. Is their scope (whilst recognising the cost implications!) for judicial review of GMC and NHS guidelines about consent?
Hi Michael, I'd like to hear you and Naomi's thoughts on the current push to repeal the GRA. What would be the implications for SSS if this occurred?
A friend's daughter is currently taking her GCSEs and wants to be a barrister. I've think I've overheard Naomi saying she was rather fed up with her work before her recent GC cases. What advice can she give to my 16 year old please?
Despite spending a disproportionate amount in Scottish tribunals of late, any thoughts on how both E&W and Scottish employment tribunals will change as a result of unprecedented public interest? They are clearly a little uncomfortable with the parade coming to town, but they need to ensure open justice is put in to action not just leave it to be an aspiration.
And if I'm allowed a second question - I appreciate that you can't discuss the Sandie Peggie case itself, but I wonder whether you would be able to talk about the press coverage and public interest in it. Its quality (or not!), its quantity, whether this level of interest and coverage is help or hindrance to either side and/or to the process of justice in principle, that sort of thing
Where is the definitive guidance on pronouns and compelled speech?
Two arguments made in favour of repeal of the GRA are that it allows falsification of sex on official documents, and that one cannot request evidence that a GRC is held. How can these issues be addressed without repeal of the GRA?
Multiple Universities have Trans Inclusion Policies that suggest single sex spaces can become mixed sex on the basis of self ID and quote the Equality Act 2010 is support of this. Thoughts on the risk and origin of this? but specifically the position of a student challenging this as opposed to a member of staff - excerpt from a policy available on a uni website today:
Staff, students and visitors to the University, who have transitioned, are transitioning or intending to transition from one sex to the other, have the legal right to use the facilities relevant to the sex they identify with. This protection is provided by the Equality Act 2010.
For those who are gender non-conforming, the University has a range of facilities across the campus that are gender neutral. The University Estate Strategy aims to widen the availability of gender-neutral facilities as refurbishment or rebuild of University premises are undertaken. Those who are gender non-conforming do not have protection under the Equality Act 2010 and where gender neutral facilities are not available, should use facilities in line with the sex which they were registered as at birth.
Gender reassignment and transitioning IS NOT a disability and no one who has transitioned, or is gender non-conforming, should be expected to use the disabled access facilities unless they have a disability.
How does having multiple respondents in an employment tribunal affect the final judgement? Are there multiple judgements, one for each respondent, or a single overarching judgement? Similarly, if damages are payable are all respondents collectively responsible, or are damages awarded per respondent? Thanks
With monotonous regularity, individuals who've stated facts or expressed legitimate GC views are rounded up by the police, hauled into custody and interrogated because of the spurious necessity for a 'fast and effective investigation'. Utterly predictably, after being released under investigation, some (considerable) time later it's NFA (no further action) presumably because the police have been told by the CPS they're nowhere near the threshold for prosecution. At what point do the 'suspects' have a claim for unlawful arrest/detention? Surely the police can't rely on their own ignorance of Article 10 etc as a defence? Tim Miller