On the closure of Kenwood Ladies Pond 26 – 29 June 2023 from KLPA email sent on the 21st of June 2023
I an dismayed with the slow progress of building works on the Kenwood Ladies Pond with little transparency or accountability from parties to the contract which should have been completed by the end of May 2023, either from the City of London (the tender managers) or for that matter from Kenwood Ladies Pond Association (KLPA) who appear to be hostage to any proposals by the Heath Management or their contractors.
I would like to know if the City of London considered engaging in specific works contracts with women in the construction industry (as discussed at the KLPA AGM in March 2023), in particular what attempts were made (if any) to try to ensure that female trades people were hired to carry out the works at the women’s pond preventing frequent closure on an already delayed contract.
Ironically, women were asked by the City of London in the email to KLPA, to address any comments on the latest pond closure to Stephania Horne the shortest serving and first female Hampstead Heath superintendent who lasted only 18 months and left the first week of June before the email was sent out. Interim arrangements are still being put into place for July 2023.
In March 2023 at the Kenwood Ladies Pond Association (KLPA) AGM women firmly rejected calls to change the constitution, which was rewritten as an attempt to remove ‘women and girls’ from its constitution, allowing anyone to use the space ‘regardless of protected characteristic’. This effectively would have turned the Womens Pond into a mixed sex pond permanently after nearly 100 years.
These manoevres serve as an example of the ongoing influence of certain individuals in positions of power like Councillor Edward Lord OBE to force women to accept men into the women’s pond and mix sex the pond by launching an onerous online survey where 21,000 replies were erased on behalf of the City of London . This survey has been discredited many times on many levels including democratic.
According to Maya Forstater the survey was massively skewed towards Edward Lord’s personal networks and away from the many women they have blocked on social media whilst:
- Older people were particularly underrepresented.
- The survey’s language was incomprehensible most people would not understand what was being proposed.
- The interpretation of the Equality Act in the independent consultant’s report is not referenced to any lawyers and seems to be Edward Lord’s view.
- Comments which disagreed with this interpretation of the Equality Act were not included in the report.
- Still over a quarter of respondents disagreed with the proposition that access to single sex services should be based on gender identity. Their responses were not deemed to matter. The Establishment Committee instead discussed how to change their attitudes. (whilst allowing Edward Lord to make business pitches it seems)
Despite Hampstead Men’s Pond Association agreeing to ‘welcome’ women to swim at the Men’s Pond between 8am – 11am during all 4 days of closure at the Ladies’ Pond next week (26 – 29th June 23) this gesture effectively enables a mixed sex swimming slot displacing women swimmers whilst retaining the early morning swim for men (for their privacy) for the first hour of the day.
I believe that this ‘arrangement’ for women using the Men’s and Mixed Pond indirectly discriminates against women who are limited by this time slot for women only freshwater swimming in addition to religious and other matters of faith. However, the impact on women for safe swimming is dangerously enhanced.
The open environment of both ponds will be too exposed for women who are already targets of men with criminal intentions as incidents of indecent exposure and sexual assault are increasing on the Heath and the City of London’s 12 park police officers (the Hampstead Heath Constabulary) are relying on the Met and public evidence to catch the offenders. A serving Metropolitan Police officer has recently appeared in court accused of outraging public decency on Hampstead Heath.
Indeed, sexual assaults against women have increased by 31% across London since the termination of COVID 19 lockdowns. Women are now in greater danger of predatory men.
Recently, male swimmers have stated that they will “strip when we want to” at the Hampstead Heath Men’s Pond in protest at a new ban on naked sunbathing.
“Regulars say Heath managers, the City of London, made a unilateral decision against the views of a majority of swimmers, with some planning a “slow strip” protest.”
When biological males come into areas of the pond where women are undressing, without the consent of each and every one of these women, it constitutes sexual assault – voyeurism and, if they expose their genitalia – flashing. Both of these acts are criminal offences. Are women expected to put up with male nudity as protest during this four-day period? Or is this really about trans identifying persons using the facilities which match their gender (not sex).
The Equality Act 2010 establishes that a person must not be discriminated against because of their gender reassignment (such as being excluded from employment, housing, or services). It does not state that a person should be allowed to use the services provided for the opposite sex.
Furthermore, the subjection of women onto a traditional male nudity area is a cynical attempt to make it more “inclusive” for females claiming to be men whilst stripping other females of their right to dignity and privacy.
The Men’s Pond is entitled to its own policies but not at the expense of compromising women’s single sex spaces as outlined in the Equality Act. The category “nonbinary” is not even referenced in the Equality Act 2010. Indeed why would Cllr Edward Lord OBE who identifies as a non-binary and bisexual ever wish to be in a binary Women’s Pond unless it was mixed sex and also a great opportunity to finally close the mixed sex pond to the north-west?
In the City Of London Report : Public Sector Equality Duty – A Guide To Meeting The Duty and Undertaking Equality Analysis where the City of London offers its own ‘version’ of the Protected Characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 as:
Age, Disability, Gender reassignment, Marriage and civil partnership, Pregnancy and maternity, Race, Religion or belief, Sex (gender), Sexual orientation.
The City of London by stating that legal sex does not coincide with sex at birth, effectively neuters the meaning of sex and implies that sex does not need to be recorded at all, hence erasing applications for single sex exceptions. This falsification of reality is open to all forms and accusations of financial and societal corruption if people can identify out of fraudulent and criminal activity or influence tribunals for persons discriminated against for holding lawful beliefs.
The City of London have lobbied for the law to use the term sex and gender interchangeably, so that nobody has any boundaries.
However, the law is not as the City of London sees it. The UK does not operate a system of self-identification. Yet some service providers behave as if they have a legal duty to admit biological males who identify as females into women-only spaces.
I condemn the City of London (CofL) arrangements for the closure of the women’s pond and believe this would lead to a slippery slope with men claiming to be women or non-binary (a term not in UK Equality Act 2010) demanding access to the women’s pond effectively turning it into a mixed sex facility by stealth.
In conclusion I would like to know, what (if any), equality impact assessment the City of London carried out ahead of the works at the women’s pond. We believe several groups with protected characteristics are being adversely impacted by the decisions being taken by them: especially women’s sex-based rights and the rights of disabled women and women from religious minorities.
In particular I request that the City of London provides evidence of:
- What other collation of sufficient evidence exists to determine whether changes being considered will have a potential impact on different groups (without resort to doctored surveys completed via personal social media networks and the simultaneous blocking of women on same social media networks to prove their points)
- What process has ensured that decision makers are aware of the analysis that has been undertaken and what conclusions have been reached on the possible scale of implications?
- What records exist of the full decision-making process?
Given that the City of London intends to carry on with the works “in the background” what happens if they are not completed within the four-day timescale? Some season ticket holders have already stated their intentions to request refunds or not renew the season tickets for the inconvenience and constant changing of terms of engagement.