Latest news with #UKSupremeCourt
Spectator
a day ago
- Politics
- Spectator
The next front in the gender wars
April's Supreme Court judgment ought to have been the final nail in the coffin for transgender ideology. The belief that you can pick your gender, like you would a hat in the morning, seemed to have ended. The highest court unanimously confirmed that for the purposes of the Equality Act, sex is biological – immutable, material and not up for ideological reinterpretation. Yet if the past decade has taught us anything, it is that the gender industry doesn't give up; it adapts. Numerous organisations, many taxpayer-funded, now exist for the sole purpose of pushing back against any resistance to trans orthodoxy. Defeat is merely a fundraising opportunity. The semantic contortions have already begun. India Willoughby, a biological male who has fathered a child, has tweeted: 'UK Supreme Court rules butterflies are biological caterpillars and frogs are biological tadpoles. It means butterflies can no longer fly – and frogs are banned from sitting on leaves. Butterflies and frogs say they will ignore the ruling.' If you can't make any sense of this point, join the club. Then there's Dr Helen Webberley, founder of GenderGP, a 'clinic' that is registered in Singapore in an attempt to circumvent UK laws about prescribing children puberty blockers and hormones. She recently told GB News that while the Supreme Court has confirmed 'the literal interpretation of the Equality Act is that 'woman' is biological sex… they haven't said what biological sex is'. Activists almost succeeded in redefining 'woman'. Now they have lost that fight, on they move to the definition of 'biological'. Predictably, a legal counteroffensive is already under way. The tax-barrister-turned-Twitter-pugilist Jolyon Maugham KC, best known for killing a fox while wearing a kimono, is raising funds to 'stop the UK's attack on trans people'.
Daily Mirror
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Popular UK festival angers fans with 'discriminatory' trans toilet policy
Following the UK Supreme Court's ruling in favour of For Women Scotland, Download festival shared its new policy to exclude trans people from their preferred bathrooms Download festival has caused a major uproar online after it made a controversial stance on attendee safety. The rock and metal festival in Donnington Park, Leicestershire, will host headliners Green Day, Poppy, and KoRn featuring Weezer, Sex Pistols with Frank Carter, and more between June 13 and 15. However, instead of the usual guidelines warning of heatwaves and crowds, Download festival has attempted to assure customers on their safety via bathrooms, promising to abide by biological toilets. The festival said in a statement: "We are proud of the reputation the Download community has in terms of diversity, and will always look to promote the safety and comfort of all festival attendees, including transgender and non-binary customers," before adding that they "will be following the interim guidance by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission on April 25, 2025". This guidance states that "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities". Their new implementation appears to be influenced by the UK's Supreme Court's ruling in favour of the so-called 'gender critical' volunteer organisation For Women Scotland. This ruling defined 'woman' as a term categorised by a person's sex alone, thereby excluding the trans and non-binary communities from everyday spaces, such as public bathrooms. Ironically, the festival will be held right in the middle of Pride month, and trans acts and allies are not happy. Musician and singer, NOAHFINNCE took to socials on May 27 to speak out against the festival's policy. He posted on his Instagram story, writing: "Hey @downloadfest, what the f--k are you doing inviting trans people to play your festival but not allowing them the simple right of using the correct bathroom?" The singer also added that they had "a great time playing last year but will not be attending again if [they] have to queue up for the ladies' bathroom". Outraged over his "trans sisters hav[ing] to risk outing themselves in the men's bathroom," Noah stated that "all this does is put trans people in danger". Having came out to the public as a transgender man in 2017, he called others to join him in holding the festival accountable, writing: "If you're playing @downloadfest, attending it or even just aware of it, say something about it". NOAHFINNCE also tweeted on X, adding: "What the f--k are you doing? How have you got the gall to invite trans people like me to play your festival and then ban them from using the toilet? If the only way we can piss is by outing ourselves then you've created an unsafe environment". The festival 's previous act, American rock band, Pinkshift, also said that whilst playing at Download last year was "fun," the new decision is "crazy and so unsafe". On their Instagram story, they said: "What f--king music festival polices gendered bathrooms?" They proceeded to thank Noah "for being the only artist [they]'ve seen talk about this… if Download is part of your life then speak up, they think they can get away with discrimination in the ripe year of 2025". In response, Download told NME they "want everyone to feel safe, supported and welcome at the festival" and reassured festival goers that "the majority of toilets will be gender neutral and available to all" and that single sex toilets will also be provided. 'Download Festival has always been and remains for everyone. We sincerely apologise that a previous communication on this was not clear. We are looking forward to seeing you at Download this year," the statement concluded. The Mirror have reached out to Download festival for a response.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Lloyds faces questions on ‘no harm' claims amid mounting provisions
As the UK Supreme Court prepares to rule on whether car finance providers broke the law by failing to disclose commission arrangements to borrowers, a central question is coming into focus: how do lenders, such as Lloyds, justify claims of 'no harm' to customers while setting aside billions of pounds for potential redress? Lloyds Banking Group, the UK's largest motor finance lender, is at the centre of this debate. CEO Charlie Nunn told MPs on 20 May that Lloyds had seen 'no evidence of harm' in its car finance activities and argued that its motor finance arm, Black Horse, typically offered some of the lowest interest rates in the market. On that basis, he said, customers were unlikely to have found better deals elsewhere, even if dealer commissions were not disclosed. But the bank has also made two significant financial provisions. A £450 million charge was booked in late 2024 concerning the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) review of discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs). A second, £700 million provision followed earlier this year, after the Court of Appeal ruled that the non-disclosure of commissions could give rise to a claim in other consumer credit spaces beyond motor finance. This appears difficult to square with a claim of no customer detriment. Nunn, however, told the Treasury Select Committee that these charges should not be interpreted as admissions of harm but viewed as a result of unavoidable accounting principles. "That £450 million provision incorporates two things. One is the operational expenses of responding to claimant law firms. We have had a very large number of complaints that aren't even from our customers, so we know there are significant operational expenses in processing and trying to help customers. I don't know if they even had a policy with us, but there is a very high percentage of those. It is processing the operational complaints, supporting the customers and, if there is remediation linked to harm, paying out that remediation. "We haven't disclosed the split between those two things, but we obviously have experience. The operational expenses are very significant. We knew, based on actions that the FCA has announced, that we were going to incur significant costs. From an accounting perspective, we are legally obliged to do that. That is not linked to decisions that the FCA and Supreme Court will take on whether there was a breach of a law, whether there was harm, and if there was harm, whether appropriate remediation should be made. All those steps are independent of the accounting provision. I know that probably isn't helpful for the public, but that is the basis on which we make those decisions," he told the Committee. Even so, these provisions may also reflect the scale and complexity of proving no harm, rather than simply responding to complaints. Julian Rose, Director at Asset Finance Policy Limited, has pointed out that under the current FCA regime, the burden of proof lies with lenders. If the Supreme Court confirms that firms were required to disclose commissions, it will fall to the lenders to demonstrate that customers were not financially disadvantaged. 'In my view,' Rose writes, 'it will not be for consumers (or their representatives) to show evidence of harm. It will be for the car finance companies to show evidence of no harm. That means for each agreement, they will need evidenced that the rate provided was competitive with an industry benchmark rate.' That challenge will be especially difficult if firms no longer hold the necessary data. But will it prove more expensive for claimants or lenders? Most lenders follow standard data retention policies that delete customer records after six years. According to a recent Guardian report, claims firm Courmacs Legal says it holds around 465,000 customer complaints involving loans settled before 2018, many of which may now be missing documentation. If these consumers cannot be contacted or their agreements reviewed, they could lose out on up to £1.18 billion in compensation, Courmacs estimates. In January 2024, the FCA instructed firms not to delete car finance records while its investigation continued. But that came too late for many historical agreements. In a statement to the Guardian, the FCA said: 'If we decide to undertake a redress scheme, we will work with industry and other interested parties to ensure that it is as clear and straightforward as possible for customers to complain.' The Financing and Leasing Association (FLA), which represents major lenders including Lloyds, Santander UK and Close Brothers, has acknowledged the limitations of missing data. 'We have made clear to the FCA that consistent and fair outcomes cannot be delivered with patchy or absent data,' the FLA said. While the FCA has not yet confirmed whether a formal redress scheme will be introduced, a ruling in favour of borrowers by the Supreme Court would put pressure on the regulator to act. And if a scheme is mandated, firms will need robust documentation systems to avoid defaulting to redress. This may explain why Lloyds has already put aside more than £1.1 billion, regardless of its position that customers were not harmed. If the bank intends to prove that its loans were competitively priced, the ability to evidence that across thousands of legacy agreements will be critical — and expensive. As Rose argues, operational readiness will be key. 'There needs to be a standard table showing benchmark rates for similar loans and for similar customers,' he notes. 'Where the customer paid near the benchmark or below it, then it should be reasonable to assume there was no harm.' In the absence of such evidence, however, lenders will struggle to prove their case. Lloyds may not have admitted liability, but its financial provisions suggest it is preparing for a process where outcomes may hinge not on clear evidence of harm, but on the inability to demonstrate that harm did not occur. "Lloyds faces questions on 'no harm' claims amid mounting provisions" was originally created and published by Motor Finance Online, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Daily Mirror
6 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Trans activists install 'third toilet' outside UK Supreme Court after ruling
A trans activist group made their stand by placing a "third toilet" on the steps of the Supreme Court - a direct response to the suggestion to make their own "third space" Trans advocacy organisation TransActual UK launched its latest campaign right on the doorstep of the UK Supreme Court, and its not something you can miss. On Wednesday, May 21, the "Third Toilet," - which is quite literally, a toilet - was placed significantly on the court steps to highlight the question: where will trans people go... for the 'loo'? Made by creative agency BBH London, the pink and blue striped toilet, representing the trans flag, posed as both a call for action and demand for a reinforcement of trans rights and the community's protection since the UK Supreme Court ruled in favour of what is called the 'gender critical' volunteer organisation For Women Scotland. The group's appeal fought against the Scottish Government's use of 'woman' in reference to the non-cis community. The Mirror reported on the joint judgement given by Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler, with which the other Justices agreed, relaying that a unanimous verdict that the term 'woman' used in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, and that alone. This controversial court ruling created a wave of debate on online platforms, stirring the fears of the trans community in regards of their safety, along with the stigma that trans women are supposedly at fault for women feeling unsafe, particularly in bathrooms. The court ruling in Scotland has manifested into exclusive bathrooms for cis-gendered men and women, drawing TransActual's question: "Where, exactly, are trans people supposed to go?". Demand for single-sex places - and comments such as Baroness Kishwer Falkner's, active chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who said that trans rights groups should create a separate "third space" - have resulted in the statement piece dropped deliberately outside Britain's most esteemed court. TransActual's message? To confront the exclusive ruling which threatens to isolate the minority from the public and social aspect of everyday life. The organisation's director, Hafsa Qureshi, shared a statement which read: "The Supreme Court claimed it brought clarity to an area of difficulty, however, it did the exact opposite," who added that whilst reducing the rights of the trans community, the ruling has already has "devastating" effects. She continued, saying: "This campaign is a powerful statement – about being forced to exist without safety, privacy, and rights, in full view of a society that refuses to see us". Two days ago, in act of defiance, Olivia Campbell Cavendish, founder and executive director of the Trans Legal Clinic, made her stand by (in fact) sitting on the Third Toilet. She said: "We need to move the conversation on from ridiculous things like bathrooms and onto the things that matter," before stating that "the safety of trans people everywhere," takes precedence. Camila Gurgel and Ieva Paulina, Associate Creative Directors at BBH, were clear about the exhibit not being a real victory "when so much has been lost," when the ruling ostracised the community in question from what "directly impacted their lives". "Our hope is that the Third Toilet installation sparks awareness, conversation, solidarity and inspires more people to stand with the trans community," concluded BBH. To find out more, visit
LeMonde
6 days ago
- Politics
- LeMonde
'What is a woman?': Court ruling reopens the 'gender war' in the UK
The sun was shining and the smiles were wide. On April 16, in front of the UK Supreme Court – a neo-Gothic architectural gem across from the Palace of Westminster – Susan Smith and Marion Calder, two founders of the group For Women Scotland, celebrated their victory. Surrounded by photographers, they toasted and then sang their rallying song, "For Women's Rights," to the tune of the famous Scottish melody "Auld Lang Syne." After five years of legal battles with the Scottish government, the country's highest court ruled in favor of these so-called "gender critical" feminist activists, who believe gender is not a perception but a biological reality, by offering a definitive answer to a seemingly basic question: "What is a woman?" The Equality Act 2010, the country's main anti-discrimination law, had not, until now, defined the term "woman." In its April 16 decision, which carries the force of law, the Supreme Court restricted the definition to "biological sex." The court rejected the previously prevailing interpretation that transgender women with a gender recognition certificate – which legally acknowledges their change of gender – are also considered women and therefore entitled to access women-only spaces such as toilets, locker rooms or prisons. "This is a victory for common sense," declared the founders of For Women Scotland after the hearing, surrounded by banners in purple and green – the colors of the suffragettes, those early 20 th -century campaigners for women's right to vote, whose memory remains cherished in the country.
