A Scottish judge has delivered what would once have been regarded as a statement of the obvious: girls should have access to girls-only toilets.
The Court of Session ruled that West Lothian Council acted unlawfully by failing to provide single-sex toilet facilities at a newly built primary school. The case was brought by the parents of a young girl who became so distressed by the mixed-sex arrangements that she reduced her fluid intake to avoid using the toilets during the school day.
According to the judgment, the “child regularly returned home in pain because she refused to use the facilities”. Other parents had also raised concerns before the family took the matter to Scotland’s highest civil court.
The council argued that “separate floor-to-ceiling lockable cubicles were sufficient”. Lady Poole disagreed, ruling that the authority had failed to comply with its legal obligations and ordering it to pay the parents’ legal costs.
It is quite a remarkable achievement of modern governance that a family had to go all the way to court to establish that primary school girls deserve privacy. Once upon a time, common sense was free. Now it apparently requires judicial review.
England and Wales
In Wales, parents at Morriston Comprehensive School in Swansea raised concerns as far back as 2021 after unisex facilities were introduced. While the toilet cubicles themselves remained separate, boys and girls shared communal washing areas. Some parents reportedly advised their children not to use the facilities, arguing that girls deserved greater privacy. The school defended the arrangements, claiming they helped reduce bullying and loitering.
Parents at Bishop of Llandaff Church in Wales High School in Cardiff voiced similar concerns after the introduction of gender-neutral toilets. School leaders insisted the changes were made for practical reasons rather than ideology, but the move nevertheless sparked considerable opposition from families.
In England, Priory School, Lewes (East Sussex), attracted national attention over “gender-neutral” policies and was cited in wider debates about facilities and accommodation for transgender pupils. There was even a petition calling for gender-neutral toilets at the school.
Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch, referred to a case involving a girl who allegedly developed health problems because she avoided using newly rebuilt gender-neutral toilets. The school was reported to be in Walsall, although it was not publicly named
It is a remarkable sign of our times that judges increasingly have to intervene to remind educational authorities of something previous generations regarded as self-evident: girls deserve privacy, and safeguarding is not an optional extra.
“Obsessed With Certain Middle-class Hobby Horses”
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that sex in equality law refers to biological sex, the Equality and Human Rights Commission updated its code of practice. The reaction from sections of Labour was immediate and predictable.
Labour MP Sarah Owen complained that the guidance remained “trans-exclusionary”. Nadia Whittome claimed that it “effectively pushes trans people out of public life”, while Cat Eccles “warned” of a major change in how equality law might operate. How laughable.
The Government’s response was rather less dramatic. Equalities Minister Seema Malhotra simply stated: “We will continue to ensure that we provide single-sex spaces where needed, and also ensure that trans people have access to services to support their needs, in an environment of dignity and respect for all”.
Perhaps the most striking intervention came from Labour MP Jonathan Hinder, who appeared increasingly bewildered that so many of his colleagues were dedicating their energy to opposing a law that says men cannot use women’s changing rooms.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight, he asked: “Are we for working-class people or are we obsessed with certain middle-class hobby horses?”
It is not often that a politician summarises a debate so effectively. While voters worry about housing, immigration, energy bills and crime, Westminster remains capable of spending an entire afternoon arguing with biological reality.
John 8:32 Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Hampstead Heath
While Scotland’s courts have been reminding councils what the law says about sex, the City of London Corporation has been busy demonstrating that consultation exercises can apparently achieve what court judgments cannot.
The Corporation has voted to retain its existing policy at Hampstead Heath bathing ponds. As a result, “transgender women”, whose biological sex is male, may continue using the Ladies’ Pond, while “transgender men”, whose biological sex is female, may continue using the Men’s Pond.
According to the Corporation, 86 per cent of the 38,000 responses supported keeping the current arrangements. To address concerns, additional private cubicles will now be installed.
The logic is fascinating. The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of sex in law, yet a public consultation appears capable of producing a different practical outcome. One wonders what other settled legal definitions might be revisited if enough online survey responses can be gathered.
At least the Corporation has found a solution. When reality proves inconvenient, simply build more cubicles and hope nobody notices the contradiction.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Common Sense Returns to Sunderland, “Pride Flag” Yanked Off
In what can only be described as a refreshing return to common sense, the flag of England will now fly outside Sunderland City Hall every single day of the year.
Yes, England’s national flag flying permanently above an English city council building is now apparently newsworthy — such is the state of modern Britain.
The decision was announced by Reform UK councillors after residents repeatedly questioned why the flag of St George was not already being flown all year round at the heart of an English city.
Councillor Ciera Hudspith, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Tourism and Heritage, said: Cllr Ciera Hudspith, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Tourism and Heritage, said: “Any flag flown outside a governing body should represent our nation and our country as a whole, not a sectional interest.
“Time and time again on the doorstep, residents told us they were confused as to why England’s flag was not flying outside City Hall all year round.
“Today, it is an honour and a privilege to raise the flag of St George at the heart of our great city.”
The council also confirmed that “council’s flagpoles will be reserved for national and civic flags that represent our country, heritage and wider community as a whole. For that reason, the Pride flag will never be flown outside City Hall.”
Predictably, this triggered immediate outrage from political opponents and activists, who accused Reform UK of engaging in “pathetic culture war politics” and attempting to divide communities.
Psalm 57:5 Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens; let thy glory be above all the earth.
Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
“Love is love?”
Labour critics insisted that flying the Pride flag showed LGBT people they were “welcome, valued and respected”, while accusing Reform of making people feel unwelcome under the banner of patriotism.
The Sunderland Labour Group said: “Reform UK banning the Pride flag from City Hall is pathetic culture war politics designed to divide people and distract from the real issues affecting people across our city.
Singling out areas of the community is designed to be divisive. Sunderland is a proud, welcoming and decent city where people look out for one another and where all our communities matter.
“Flying the Pride flag at City Hall showed the world that all people are welcome, valued and respected. Reform are trying to make LGBTQ+ people feel unwelcome and calling it “patriotism.”
“Sunderland is better than this toxic attempt at division. We stand in full solidarity with our LGBTQ+ communities and friends. You deserve to feel safe and respected everywhere. Love is love.”
But many residents will struggle to see how flying England’s national flag outside an English civic building became controversial in the first place.
In some places, St George’s Cross seemed to appear only during football tournaments, briefly tolerated before being packed away again for another year.
Sunderland’s decision marks a noticeable shift away from performative politics and back towards civic identity rooted in nationhood, history, and shared heritage.
And judging by the reaction, one might conclude that flying England’s flag in England is now considered the truly rebellious act.
1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Support NCCSS / Christian Voice →
Other councils
Sunderland is not the only council beginning to rethink whether town halls should function as permanent billboards for political activism.
In recent years, councils in parts of England and Wales have either scaled back “Pride” displays, limited which flags can be flown on public buildings, or adopted “neutral flag” policies restricting council flagpoles to official national and civic symbols only. Such councils are Kent, North and West Northamptonshire and Durham County Council.
The argument is remarkably simple: council buildings are supposed to represent the entire public, not specific political movements or ideological campaigns. That, however, is now treated as deeply provocative.
For years, many local authorities appeared perfectly comfortable flying activist banners while simultaneously insisting they were politically neutral institutions. Yet the moment councils decide to prioritise national flags instead, accusations of “division” suddenly emerge.
Apparently, flying the flag of England above an English city hall is exclusionary, while flying ideological symbols for months at a time was somehow a shining example of unity.
The deeper issue is not really about flags at all. It is about who public institutions believe they exist to represent.
More councils are now beginning to realise that ordinary residents expect civic buildings to reflect shared national identity and local heritage, not the latest social campaign approved by diversity officers and activists on social media.
And judging by the increasingly furious reactions whenever Pride flags are quietly removed, some activists seem to have mistaken temporary public support for permanent ownership of civic space.
Return to the UK’s Christian Constitution →
Ghana Takes a Stand Against Sodomy
While much of the Western political class remains busy debating pronouns, rewriting definitions, and assuring citizens that biological reality is remarkably complicated, Ghana has decided to take a rather different approach.
The West African nation has become the latest country to advance legislation restricting “LGBT” activism, following a sustained campaign by church groups, religious leaders, and family-values organisations.
Under the proposed law, the promotion, sponsorship, or advocacy of LGBT activities could carry prison sentences of up to ten years. Same-sex relationships would remain illegal, while individuals identifying as “LGBT” could also face criminal penalties. The legislation is expected to be signed into law by President John Dramani Mahama.
Supporters say the bill protects Ghana’s cultural values, religious convictions, and traditional understanding of family life.
Unbothered About Lectures from Western Activists
What makes the story particularly striking is not the legislation itself, but the confidence behind it. Ghana appears entirely unconcerned about lectures from Western activists, international NGOs, or the inevitable outrage from social-media campaigners thousands of miles away.
In Britain, politicians often seem terrified of saying anything that might upset a pressure group. In Ghana, lawmakers appear more interested in asking what their own citizens believe.
Whether one agrees with every aspect of the legislation or not, there is something refreshingly unfashionable about a country that still believes its laws should reflect its culture rather than the latest ideological trends imported from abroad.
The irony is difficult to miss. For years, Western governments have enthusiastically exported progressive values around the world while criticising nations that refuse to adopt them. Ghana’s response appears to be a polite but firm reminder that national sovereignty still exists and perhaps, Westminster could take note.
Growing list
Ghana is among a growing list of African countries enacting laws banning sodomy. In 2023 , Uganda voted in some of the world’s harshest anti-LGBT legislation, prescribing the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” and life imprisonment for “homosexuality”.
Earlier this year Senegal’s parliament approved a new law doubling to 10 years, the maximum prison term for sexual acts by same-sex couples and criminalising the “promotion of homosexuality”.
Religious and conservative voices in Ghana quickly welcomed parliament’s vote.
“Human rights campaigners” warned the law was not only “discriminatory, but could have far-reaching consequences beyond its intended targets”.
Related articles
Defend Freedom for ‘Conversion Therapy’ →
Who is defying the Supreme Court’s biological realities ? →
Nicola Sturgeon admits to being ‘part of problem on trans issues’ →
Kemi Badenoch warns of a ‘new form of conversion therapy’ →
Gay Conversion Therapy ban? Here come the Thought Police →
NHS to Fast-track Surgery for ‘Trans’ Patients →
Government Sits on “Trans” Guidance →
Read and pray
READ: Gen 1:27; Exod 20:13; Lev 19:32; Deut 30:19; 1 Sam 2:3; 2Sam 23:3; Psalm 82:3–4; Prov 14:12, 31:8–9; Isa 1:17
PRAY: Give thanks to God for leaders willing to honour the nation’s heritage, values, and identity with wisdom and courage.
Pray that newly elected leaders will govern with integrity, justice, and a commitment to serving all residents faithfully.
Pray that God will grant Godly leaders discernment to make decisions that promote truth, unity, and the common good.
Let us know what YOU think in the comments below.
Support us!
We appreciate your support; it enables our research and helps us inform your prayers.
So click below to support Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings
Click on the social media links below to share this post:
