Maugham stated that the GLP had “instructed leading and junior Counsel and intend to send a formal pre-action protocol letter”
The Good Law Project has also asked to hear from LGBT+ employees and people who are from Black and Ethnic minorities of the corporation who would like to join their challenge.
The BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, who was once a councillor for the Conservative Party in Hammersmith in 1993 and 1994, was keen to stress that BBC staffers were allowed to attend prides saying that attending Pride events and said that attending a parade was possible while staying inside the guidelines, but “due care needs to be given to the guidance and staff need to ensure that they are not seen to be taking a stand on politicised or contested issues”.
Since 2015 there has been a 165% rise in the number of sexual orientation discrimination cases brought against employers, according to new data from compliance training specialist DeltaNet International and the Ministry of Justice.
The study analysed over 120,000 discrimination cases that went to employment tribunals and included cases of sexual orientation, disability, race, age, gender and pregnancy-related complaints.
Almost 500 cases in the last year
Sexual orientation claims have increased 165% since 2015/16 to almost 500 cases in 2019/20.
The statistics show that discrimination has increased across 7 categories, with only discrimination on the basis of age declining in number of cases since 2015. The following points show the percentage increase in cases:
Sexual orientation (+165%)
Disability discrimination (+133%)
Religion or belief discrimination (+131%)
Race discrimination (+95%)
Pregnancy discrimination (+87%)
Sex discrimination (+15%)
Age discrimination (-81%)
There has been a steady increase in the number of cases which involve discrimination on the basis of sexuality since 2015.
Jayne Harrison is Head of Employment Law at Richard Nelson LLP. Speaking of the study, she said,
“It has become far more accessible for employees to lodge sexual orientation discrimination cases. Tribunal fees were abolished on 26 July 2017 and since then tribunals have seen an increase year on year with claims being lodged as now an unhappy employee can use the tribunal system without it costing them anything.
“Previously the fees were around £1200 for an unfair dismissal case but much less (£390) for a wages claim/unlawful deduction. This seemed to act as a bar to potential litigants and one of the main reasons why the fees were abolished when they were challenged by the unions.”
“As the data reveals, the best method of avoiding employment tribunals is to treat staff with fairness, dignity, and respect – and to follow clearly laid-out procedures.
“As employers, it’s important we offer training to those we trust in managerial positions on the basic requirements of employment law. Managers should know how to handle sexual orientation discrimination grievances respectfully and transparently and should be regularly updated about the businesses’ statutory and contractual requirements.
“Without this knowledge, it’s hard for staff members to remain fair and consistent, and this is when many organisations may find themselves in hot water.”
Over the number of cases involving discrimination on the basis of sexuality remains low compared to race, sex, or disability.
Other LGBT+ Discrimination Cases
A gender-fluid employee at Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) was awarded £180,000 in compensation earlier this month after employment tribunal case against JLR on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination.
In a statement, JLR apologised to the employee, Mx Taylor and said they will continue to work on improvement in this area. Mx Taylor had worked for the company for over 20 years and presented as male before identifying as gender-fluid in 2017.
A transgender employee of Amazon is currently in the process of claiming against his employer after claiming he was denied promotion after announcing he was pregnant.
Under the non-discrimination law passed in 2010, a UK employer cannot discriminate against an employee on the basis of a number of protected characteristics including sexual orientation and gender reassignment.
Darren Grimes, an openly gay, conservative journalist, has said that he’s set to take on the Metropolitan police after they opened an investigation after an interview Grimes published on his podcast, in which its subject used terms that have caused offence. In the interview, Dr David Starkey suggested slavery was not genocide because so many black people survived.
Taking to Twitter, the 27-year-old, said that the UK’s biggest police force, the Metropolitan Police had “threatened an unprecedented use of Public Order legislation to target me and my channel @ReasonedUK“, he added, that it should “concern anyone that believes in freedom of the press”.
Grimes released a video after he was summoned by the Met, by email, for a “voluntary” interview. However according to Grimes, he was threatened with arrest if he failed to attend. He described the investigation against him as an “outrageous abuse of taxpayer cash”.
In the video, uploaded to his official social media channel he said,
“So earlier this week I was contacted by the Metropolitan Police and told that if I didn’t attend a voluntary interview with them, I’d be arrested.
“I’ve been accused for stirring up racial hatred for an interview I did with Dr David Starkey back in June.
“It’s just such an outrageous abuse of taxpayer cash and the trust that we have in the police as citizens. So much so that at first I couldn’t believe it was real. I went into my local police station to verify the email.
He continued, ‘The only hatred Dr Starkey stirred up was against himself, even after apologising, the repercussions for him after that interview had been severe. He’s lost every position he ever held, he wasn’t cancelled, he was airbrushed from history.
“I even said myself in a statement that I hold my hands up and should have robustly questioned Dr Starkey, but why would I bother if my intention was to stir up racial hatred?”
Does the polices’ action threaten free speech and the press?
Speaking about the “chilling effect” on free speech, Grimes said that the press has to be permitted to interview a wide range of people.
He added, “Where does setting this precedent get us if journalists and broadcasters are arrested if the people they’re interviewing say things that can be classed as likely to stir up hatred?
“In a free and democratic society, journalists and broadcasters have to be permitted to interview a wide range of people, including those likely to make a controversial remark.
“To then threaten them with arrest will have a real chilling effect on free speech and debate in this country.
“I’m going to fight this all the way and I’m delighted to say that I’m joined by the Free Speech Union.
Laurence Fox is now facing two defamation lawsuits after RuPaul Drag Race UK star Crystal confirmed that she had also engaged a lawyer to sue the actor turned politician.
Taking to social media, Crystal wrote: “In response to my criticism on Sunday, Mr Fox seriously defamed me, and I have instructed Mark Lewis of Patron Law to sue on my behalf”.
She added, “An accusation of paedophilia is one of the oldest homophobic tropes and it was very shocking to have that levelled at me, not just by Mr Fox, but also his many followers who believed him.
“I may have had to endure homophobic bullying as a child, but I will not tolerate it as an adult”.
In a defense of his words, Fox wrote on Twitter, “Language is powerful. To accuse someone of racism without any evidence whatsoever to back up that accusation is a deep slander. It carries the same stigma and reputation destroying harm as accusing someone of paedophilia. Here endeth the lesson”.
He also added, “If the game nowadays is to throw baseless insults and accusations about, then we should all be free to participate.
“Having said that, I have deleted the tweets posted yesterday, in response to being repeatedly, continuously and falsely smeared as a racist, as they just serve as a distraction to the important work that needs to be done”.
Simon Blake, who is the deputy chair of one of the UK’s largest LGBT+ charities, Stonewall, said, “I detest racism. Challenging it is important to me, but I will choose my words more carefully in future. I want to be the best ally I can to people impacted by racism
“Whilst I regret the unnecessary language I used, which is not in line with the way I like to conduct myself, I feel strongly about this issue. In response Mr Fox seriously defamed me and I have instructed Mark Lewis from Patron Law to sue for defamation.”.
In a defense of his words, Fox wrote, “Language is powerful. To accuse someone of racism without any evidence whatsoever to back up that accusation is a deep slander. It carries the same stigma and reputation destroying harm as accusing someone of paedophilia. Here endeth the lesson”.
He also added, “If the game nowadays is to throw baseless insults and accusations about, then we should all be free to participate.
Having said that, I have deleted the tweets posted yesterday, in response to being repeatedly, continuously and falsely smeared as a racist, as they just serve as a distraction to the important work that needs to be done.
Jeremy Joseph who owns the G-A-Y brand has launched a legal challenge to the government’s controversial 10 PM curfew, arguing that it not put forward any scienciftic evidence to show that the new restrictions would work.
The curfew is supposed to help stop the spread of COVID-19 among patrons of venues across the UK, except since its introduction on the 24th September, scenes of overcrowding on streets and public transport have been witnessed across the country as bars and restaurants “kick out” at the exact same time.
“No sense”
Speaking to Sky News this morning, Jeremy Joseph said he was launching a judicial review of the new restrictions, saying that the new policy made “no sense” and did the opposite of protecting people.
He said, “The government has failed to show why the 10 pm curfew was put in place and has published no scientific evidence to substantiate its implementation.”
He added that he thought that the hospitality industry had been “thrown under a bus” and they hadn’t done anything to protect businesses.
Striking a balance
G-A-Y had introduced its “Covid-secure” screening and systems back in July. It included screens around the payment and ordering areas and perspex bubbles for people to sit and drink.
Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary has defended the measure saying that it was a “necessary measure”.
A government spokesperson said, “Our measures strike a balance between saving lives by protecting our NHS and the most vulnerable and minimising the wider impact on the economy and schools.
“The latest data suggests a considerable rise in the infection rate following people socialising in hospitality venues serving alcohol in recent weeks, so we have taken immediate action to cut the transmission rate and save lives and will keep all measures under constant review.
“The 10pm closure allows people to continue to socialise while reducing the risk of failing to socially distance.”
Bodo Mende, 60, and partner Karl Kreile, 59 tied the knot in south Berlin on the first day where gay marriages were allowed. The law was changed just three months before the first weddings took place.
Same-sex marriage became legal in Germany after Chancellor Angela Merkel changed her stance on the issue, before that, gay couple were only permitted to be civilly partnered.
In 2015 Angela Merkel revealed her thoughts on same-sex marriage in an interview posted on YouTube. While she said she supported LGBT equality, it stopped at civil partnerships.
By extending existing law to gay couples, they would automatically gain the same tax advantages and adoption rights as their straight counterparts.
In 2012, men who had been convicted of having sexual relations with another man or men could apply to have that charge or conviction removed from their criminal records.
In October 2012, under a David Cameron led Conservative/Liberal Democrat-run government, men with historic convictions for consensual gay sex could apply to have them disregarded, as the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 came into force.
Under the Act men who were convicted of “gross indecency” or consensual buggery, that is no longer illegal, can apply to have their convictions disregarded.
The 2012 Act also includes amendments which enable gay and bisexual men maliciously convicted of ‘loitering with intent’ under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 to have those convictions removed from their criminal record too.
Buried deep within the new set of regulations due to come into force today is a new section which bans “any social interaction” (including sex) with another person not from your household inside your own home.
New legislation to be brought forward by Prime Minister Boris Johnson has gone further than any other government in history to ban social interactions between people in their own homes, even if you are already in a committed long-term partnership – but don’t live together.
(C) BIGSTOCK
The new legislation which comes under the new Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations 2020 bill has been gutted of many of its original elements but has had a few new details added which curtails your freedom to social interactions with whomever you’d choose in your own home.
A new section consists of the wording which reads, “No person may participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place indoors, and consists of two or more persons”, effectively outlawing sexual interactions between people who don’t live together.
“Sex between two (or more) people in a private place who do not live in the same household… is illegal”
“I can’t believe I’m about to tweet this. From tomorrow sex between two (or more) people in a private place who do not live in the same household is a “gathering” between 2 or more people and is therefore illegal.”
Afraid to say this is correct.
I can't believe I'm about to tweet this.
From tomorrow sex between two (or more) people in a private place who do not live in the same household is a "gathering" between 2 or more people and is therefore illegal. https://t.co/aEiGIoweeepic.twitter.com/b0KZBACSQ4
Couples who don’t live together will have to continue to socially distance from each other. (C) BIGSTOCK
Previously the laws for the new health act, (for England) did not include references to gatherings in private homes.
From today (1st June) people in England will be able to do the following things:
spend time outdoors, including private gardens and other outdoor spaces, in groups of up to six people from different households, following social distancing guidelines
visit car showrooms and outdoor markets
in line with the arrangements made by your school, send your child to school or nursery if they are in early years, reception, year 1 or year 6, if you could not before
if you are an elite athlete as defined by this guidance, train and compete using the specified gyms, pools and sports facilities you need – which will, in the coming weeks, we hope enable others to watch live sport on TV
No Debate on laws
Wagner said that it was “so frustrating” that the regulations weren’t being put to parliament for debate.
He added, “It’s madness. These are huge changes and they affect every single person in England, and there are loads of potentially unclear and difficult bits.
“Why so reluctant to engage debate?”
Argh it is so frustrating that these regulations don't get put to parliament at least for debate. It's madness. These are huge changes and they affect every single person in England, and there are loads of potentially unclear and difficult bits. Why so reluctant to engage debate?
A 66-year-old Christian woman in Nebraska, US, is planning on taking all gay people to court to try and determine whether homosexuality is a sin.
Time.com is reporting that Sylvia Driskell, 66, who describes herself as an ambassador of “God, And His, Son Jesus Christ [sic]” is embarking on a legal challenge called “Driskell v. Homosexuals“, oh and she’s using just the bible and the Webster’s Dictionary as her only information source.
In her seven page petition to the court she writes,
“I never thought that I would see a day in which our great nation or our own great state of Nebraska would become so compliant to the complicity of some people[’s] lewd behavior,”
She also states, “that homosexuality is a sin and that they the homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality. Why else would they have been hiding in the closet.”
According to the report Driskell will be serving as her own legal counsel.
Gay and bi men in Singapore will, for the time being, continue to live as “un-apprehended criminals” under Section 377A after the High Court dismissed a challenge to close out a colonial-era law that outlaws “acts of ‘gross indecency’ between men”, a law that has been imposed since the British colonisation of Singapore.
Although prosecutions are rare, any man who commits any act of ‘gross indecency’ with another man can be jailed for up to two years. This also extends to any man who abets, procures or attempts to procure such an act.
Speaking about the decision, Director of the Human Dignity Trust (HDT), Téa Braun said, “In declining to strike out this archaic and discriminatory law, the Court has reaffirmed that all gay men in Singapore are effectively un-apprehended criminals”.
Although Section 377A only targets gay men, activists in Singapore say that the culture of shame and homophobia it engenders casts a shadow of oppression over the whole lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans LGBT+ community.
The challenges were mounted by Johnson Ong Ming, a 43-year-old disc jockey and producer; 42-year-old Bryan Choong Chee Hoong, the former executive director of LGBT organisation Oogachaga; and Roy Tan Seng Kee, a 61-year-old retired medical doctor.
Against a backdrop of similar unsuccessful legal challenges in Singapore, the ruling today is particularly unwelcome, says HDT.
Following the historic and regionally significant September 2018 Indian Supreme Court ruling that decriminalised consensual same-sex sexual activity, and increasing levels of acceptance of LGBT people amongst Singaporeans, lawyers and activists were motivated to mount a fresh challenge to the discriminatory law.
“The ruling will also echo harmfully around Asia”
“This decision will be extremely disappointing for the plaintiffs and the wider LGBT community in Singapore, who had great hopes that new evidence presented to the Court would make it clear that these draconian laws cannot withstand proper constitutional scrutiny. The ruling will also echo harmfully around Asia, where millions of people are criminalised simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” added Braun.
