Ocado apologises to Mumsnet after it said forum had ‘hateful political views'
Ocado has apologised to Mumsnet after pulling out from a partnership 'citing Mumsnet's 'hateful political views'' because the forum included a call to clarify the definition of sex in the Equality Act in its 2024 manifesto.
It follows the judgment by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, that the definition of a woman in equality law is based on biological sex, meaning transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'.
Mumsnet's chief executive Justine Roberts posted on the site after the ruling congratulating everyone on the website who 'played a part in securing what I think most would agree is much-needed clarity in the Equality Act'.
She said that previously a 'fair number of organisations pulled their advertising under pressure from activists'.
And she added that Ocado 'pulled out' of a partnership after the website included a call to clarify the definition of sex in the Equality Act in its 2024 Mumsnet Manifesto, then 'refused to speak to us ever since'.
Ms Roberts said: 'When we included a call to clarify the definition of sex in the Equality Act in our 2024 Mumsnet Manifesto, Ocado, who had been excited about a partnership, abruptly pulled out, citing Mumsnet's 'hateful political views'.
'Despite repeated attempts to explain our position – as a platform committed to amplifying women's voices – they've refused to speak to us ever since.'
Feminist campaigner and writer Julie Bindel, the co-founder of the law reform group Justice for Women, posted on X about potentially boycotting Ocado after 'the Mumsnet thing' and Ocado replied on X saying: 'These comments are not representative of us as a company, and we believe they were made by a temporary contractor who is no longer with the business.
'We apologise unreservedly to Mumsnet.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
8 hours ago
- The National
For Women Scotland mull new legal action against Scottish Government
The anti-trans campaign group who took the case over the meaning of biological sex to the UK's highest court, and won, has now claimed the key motivation of the case has been lost amongst a growing debate on toilets. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act 2010, a woman was defined by biological sex, excluding trans people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Following the judgment in April, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance that banned transgender people from using the toilets of their acquired sex. READ MORE: Ian Murray 'does not understand how devolution works', minister says The contentious guidance was branded as 'cruel', and now a consultation, which has been extended, is now underway before full guidance is published. The fallout from the ruling also saw trans women banned from taking part in women's football and cricket. Speaking at a fringe event at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh this weekend, For Women Scotland (FWS) co-director Susan Smith claimed there has been 'extraordinary pushback' following the judgment. 'We don't want to go back to court, we really, really don't, but if we don't see some action that may be something we will have to consider,' she told journalists afterward. Smith (below, left) said there were concerns about the lack of action by the Scottish Government on prisons and school guidance. 'We have spoken to the Scottish government and asked them to withdraw some of this guidance, just to say that it's under review – they don't have to re-issue anything at this point – because it's clearly unlawful, we really do need some action,' she said. 'They're telling us they have to wait for the EHRC revised guidance and we don't believe this is true.' The EHRC guidance said that it is 'compulsory' for workplaces to offer single-sex toilets and changing facilities. It said that trans women should not be allowed to use women's facilities and trans men should not be allowed to use men's facilities as 'this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex'. The guidance then went on to say that trans people 'should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use'. READ MORE: UK jets being sent to the Middle East as Keir Starmer refuses to rule out defending Israel Smith claimed there has been too much focus on the issue of toilets. 'I wish we could stop talking about toilets all the time, because that wasn't really the reason we went to court,' she said. 'We went to court about the prisons, about the rape crisis centres, about the hospitals, where people are uniquely vulnerable.' It comes after Harry Potter author JK Rowling, who donated to FWS crowdfunder to take their case to the Supreme Court, set up a fund to challenge public service providers and employers over the issue. 'We really need people to start challenging where they feel that organisations, local councils are not implementing the law,' Smith said. 'We're very fortunate to have the fighting fund that JK Rowling set up and that will make a massive difference because when people start to realise that there's a cost maybe they will start to apply the law.' Current Scottish Prison Service (SPS) guidance states trans women prisoners cannot be housed on the female estate if they have been convicted of serious offences. A spokesperson for SPS said: 'We have received the supreme court's judgment and are considering any potential impact it may have.' The Scottish Government said it has 'been clear that we accept the supreme court judgment'. 'As the judgment relates specifically to the guidance issued under the Scottish Government's Gender Representation on Public Boards 2018 Act and stated that it was incorrect in relation to the definition referred to of 'woman' under the Equality Act, the guidance has now been removed and will be updated shortly to reflect the judgment,' a spokesperson said. 'The Scottish Government has already begun work on implementation. We have established a Short Life Working Group to ensure support and consistency across Government.'
Reuters
9 hours ago
- Reuters
Americans don't see Supreme Court as politically neutral, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) - Americans are divided on major issues that the U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule on in the coming weeks, but most agree on one thing - neither Republicans nor Democrats see the nation's top judicial body as politically neutral, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Just 20% of respondents to the poll agreed that the Supreme Court is politically neutral while 58% disagreed and the rest either said they did not know or did not respond. Among people who described themselves as Democrats, only 10% agreed it was politically neutral and 74% disagreed, while among Republicans 29% agreed and 54% disagreed. The two-day poll, which closed on Thursday, was based on responses from 1,136 U.S. adults. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The court has issued major rulings in recent years including in cases rolling back abortion rights, expanding gun rights, recognizing presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts, rejecting race-conscious collegiate admissions and curbing the power of federal agencies. Its 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Republican President Donald Trump in his first term in office. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 44% of respondents expressed a favorable view of the court, including 67% of Republicans and 26% of Democrats. The Supreme Court's popularity has declined since its June 2022 decision to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. Some 57% of respondents in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted at the end of 2021 expressed a favorable opinion of the court. By the end of June 2022, that figure had fallen to 43%. The justices are expected to issue rulings in major cases in the coming weeks as they near the end of their current term that began in October. Among these cases are one on the legality of Tennessee's Republican-backed law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors and one involving Trump's executive order restricting automatic birthright citizenship, part of his hardline approach to immigration. Some 53% of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they supported "laws that prevent transgender children under the age of 18 from getting medical treatment related to gender identity and gender transitioning." Another 28% opposed such laws and the rest were unsure or did not answer the question. Among Republicans, support for such laws was at 57% and opposition at 28%, while among Democrats support was at 23% and opposition at 54%. The Tennessee law prohibits medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors. During December 4 arguments in the case, the court's conservative justices signaled their willingness to uphold the law. The eventual ruling could affect other state laws targeting transgender people. After Trump signed his birthright citizenship directive in January, 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants sued, arguing that it was a violation of citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The court also by the end of this month is expected to issue a ruling on the legality of a Texas law that requires people to verify the age online before accessing pornographic websites. The Reuters/Ipsos poll found strong support for such laws. Among all respondents, 70% were in support and 14% opposed. Among Democrats, 65% supported and 18% opposed, while among Republicans 80% supported and 7% opposed. During January 15 arguments in the case, the justices seemed to agree that states can try to keep adult material from minors but also voiced concern over burdens imposed on adults to view constitutionally protected material.
The Herald Scotland
13 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
UCU academics oppose Glasgow Uni trans rights consultation
The review of the institution's gender policies is being carried out in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman in late April. In the wake of the judicial decision, which ruled that the term 'woman' derives its legal definition from biological sex, not gender identity; transgender women have been banned from a range of female-only toilets and sports teams, including at the Scottish Parliament. The UCU is a prominent supporter of trans rights. (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA)The email, sent last Thursday, reads: 'Communication with our membership is already evidencing that this consultation is causing distress and fear for trans, nonbinary and other gender diverse staff and students, by exposing them to scrutiny and debate about their rights, and requiring them to feel obliged to respond in defence of those rights – rights that the University is already on record as stating it supports as 'an inclusive community'. 'We recommend that UCU members do not respond to this consultation until we can issue further guidance. We are also preparing to ask UofG EDU to cancel this consultation and to discuss with us better ways of supporting staff and students around the Supreme Court decision. Read more: The communique goes on to state that the UCU 'unequivocally' promotes the rights of trans and nonbinary staff and students, adding: 'We believe that this type of consultation on the rights of marginalised groups increases their marginalisation, severely impacts their wellbeing and safety, and does not provide a sound basis for determining policy or practice. 'Human rights are not up for debate. It also increases the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that has already been engendered by the Supreme Court ruling.' For Women Scotland took the Scottish Government to court in April. (Image: PA) A spokesperson for campaign group For Women Scotland has hit out at the union, telling The Herald: 'UCU appears to inhabit an alternate reality where universities can pick and choose which laws they obey. It benefits none of their members if the union or the university stick their fingers in their ears like a petulant toddler. It also reflects poorly on their capacity to understand pretty basic concepts. 'This is not a consultation on rights, it is about the application of the law. Women who understand the reality of sex-based violence and discrimination and work at the university also have human rights, and it may astonish the UCU to learn that they also have a responsibility to represent those members as well as the select elite they prefer to pander to.' Meanwhile, Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at human rights charity Sex Matters, said the 'era of no debate' was over. She told The Herald: 'Gender ideologues' attempts to thought-police and silence gender-critical academics in recent years have been shameful. It's hard to understand how this can continue even after the Supreme Court judgment. 'This letter raises an obvious question: what is UCU Glasgow afraid of? Could it be that it cannot counter gender-critical arguments on their merits, and must resort to shunning and ostracism instead?' Protestors blocked a screening of Adult Human Female in Edinburgh in the spring of 2023. (Image: Levi Pay) The academic union is no stranger to facing criticism over its position on trans rights. Two university lecturers behind the gender-critical film Adult Human Female recently sued the UCU over claims they had been discriminated against because of their views. Dr Deirdre O'Neill of Hertfordshire University, and Michael Wayne of Brunel University, told the Employment Tribunal that the union's public opposition to the film amounted to unlawful discrimination. Members of the UCU Edinburgh branch objected to the film being shown on campus in 2022 and 2023 over 'misinformation' relating to trans and nonbinary people. However, in a ruling handed down this week, a judge dismissed the claim, ruling that the pair had not been treated detrimentally under the Equality Act 2010. Read more: Mary Senior, Scotland official UCU, said: "This is a sensible and common sense decision, and we thank Judge Laidler and the tribunal for their careful deliberations. 'It cannot be right that a trade union is not able to protest peacefully within the law and to employers when material is presented on campus which it believes attacks the human rights of others.' Asked for comment on the UCU declining to participate in the consultation, a University of Glasgow spokesperson refused to be drawn. Instead, they repeated a statement previously issued to The Herald, noting: 'The University is committed to being an inclusive community and ensuring that everyone on our campuses is treated with care and respect. We are actively considering the Supreme Court ruling and are consulting with colleagues and students.' UCU Glasgow has been contacted for comment.
