Forums » UK Transgender Law

List of newest posts

    • April 18, 2019 1:05 PM BST
    •  

      **Five years’ separation without consent.   (if the wife/spouse becomes embittered)  if she withdraws her own petition**

      As far as I am aware, you can apply for a divorce or annulment once you have been separated for 5 years,

      So logically one day after the five years of separation you can make the application, you do not then have to wait five years after the application,   Think it's just a matter of making a statement of truth/affidavit, check with a legal aid centre, not sure if she has to be notified before its made final,    Should be a quick process. 

    • April 18, 2019 9:49 AM BST
    • https://gendersociety.com/forums/topic/10112/divorcing-and-the-unreasonable-transexual

      Divorce in England & Wales is based on a marriage having "broken down irretrievably ". But there is a complication. This breakdown must be proved by evidencing only one of five "facts" laid down by the law. They are Adultery, Unreasonable Behaviour, Desertion, Two years’ separation with consent and  

      **Five years’ separation without consent.   (if the wife/spouse becomes embittered)  if she withdraws her own petition**

    • April 18, 2019 9:30 AM BST
    • Unfortunately when the same marriage act was introduced (not to be confused with civil partnerships)

      A spouses veto was introduced regarding divorce and the issue of a permanent GRC, there are lots of us fighting this, under sections of the EHRC, not that it is of any help to you those that wish to stay married can get a full GRC if both parties sign a mutual agreement form, that then skips the temporary certificate and when the amended birth certificate is issued it comes with an amended marriage certificate making it a same sex marriage.

      I am sure I have seen somewhere, after a prolonged separation one party can apply to the courts for an annulment, of course the courts can effect a trace to make service, via DWP or NHS registration.

    • April 18, 2019 9:11 AM BST
    • Thanks Christine for trying to give some advise

       

      Perhaps there maybe someone who knows more will come along. However from what I have researched You need to be able to trace her. As it stands right now. I know there is some talk about changes to the law regarding divorce But if you take the changes that they are suppose to be making to the said gender reconition act as a yard stick. It has been over four years so far and still no offical legislation. So I wont hold my breath. They will grant a Divorce if you have taken steps to trace your spouse after five years of seperation.  However these steps are costly. In fact very costly. Plus I would assume the information is a two way street. As in if I do go down the road of finding her by the medium of taking the relavent goverment departments to court to release her known address should it be needed. Which I would now assume to be much more difficult with the recent update to data protection. Then im guessing they would have to in some way reveal my current address. Either in the course of proceedings or, Which has happened before by accident to others. Almost to me also. But thats another story This was pre GDPR. For me that would be potentialy Life changing and not in a good way. Also as I said before. to add insult to injury she would i expect not agree. Therefore making it a nightmare.

       

       

      I have made a good life for myself. Im now very happy and released from the shackles of what I would say with malice. An abuser. I Have for my own purposes Completed my transition. I am completlty stelth. (The only people who I interact with now who knows my past is My Doctors. My partner and my partners mum.) My partner  I love very much and the feeling is mutual. On the whole I have contentment and I am happy in my world. Which in this life is more than I could have hoped for.

      I have to weigh it all up Emotionally and finacially and say. For the sake of getting a gender changed on a piece of paper is it worth it? As it stands I have changed everything that needs to be changed. I must admit I havent needed my Birth certificate to show as proof of anything in a long time. (No one takes it as an official form of ID anymore). Plus if you look close at it you will find it doesnt even belong to you. But thats another thread in itself. But its more the pricipal of the thing. If I had not entered into a marriage when i was younger and foolish then I would have no problem obtaining a GRC. Real life expreaince 4 Years. With proof. Council tax, Insurance, Household bills. Driving licence dating back 4 years with name change. Many forms of this type. A letter from Gender clinic dating back 3 years Confirming Gender dysphoria. From then  up to the present. So the actual part of affirming to a panel would not give me any concerns

      I have at least another 15 years before I have to worry to much about the pension. It is a private one btw. I do have the option of taking a chunk out of it beforehand. So still weighing it up.

      As far as state pension is concerned I do belive by the time it comes to pass both genders will recieve it at the same age. As they do keep moving the goal posts. Or there will not be anything worth talking about or I would no longer be of this world. So looking at the bigger picture. I would rather keep my current status quo.

       

      I would still like a route that would get me out of having to be concerned about it. As that would be the satisfactory solution for it to be not part of the things to worry about. But alias the way the law stands right now. Im going to be one who slips out of the net. Just a little fish in a big ocean

       

      If anyone has any input on my plight or indeed a solution I would be very interested. It would be recieved with great eutheism

    • April 17, 2019 9:59 PM BST
    • As far as I am aware, if you claim single persons state pension she won't get anything, if you are not yet retired and due a private pension, defer drawing it, by reinvesting until after you are divorced.

    • April 17, 2019 9:50 PM BST
    • Hiya Rachel

      You can apply for your GRC, BUT it would not be a full one, a full one would be issued once you have divorced, a temp one does not entitle you to change your birth certificate or allow you claim pension at the earlier age.

       

      The fact you have been separated for 5 years, you should be able to get the marriage annulled by swearing an affidavit, I'm not an expert on divorce, so you might need to see someone who is, to tell you what procedures are in place, proof of separation etc

       

    • April 17, 2019 9:40 PM BST
    • I have a quick question regarding a GRC and obtaining one when you are still technically Married but have been seperated for over 5 years and have no idea  where your X partner is. Bit like me really.

       

      Can I still apply for a GRC?

       

      I was under the impression that the process would be fruitless as im sure when they did the reforms a few years back you had to basically get permission if you were in an lawful marriage. Seeing as I dont know where she is I cannot get divorced or they cannot get permission from her to go ahead for the same reason. Not even an interim one would be any good as I still need at the very least her contact details.  Im a little in limbo. I was hopeing that when they do get there fingers out they will change that part to. But I doubt they will because of the potential implications.

      Being honest I doubt she would even agree as I know shes after any of my pension she can get her hands on.  Plus at the same time she doesnt know where I am. I do not want her to know either. Can I just say it was an abusive relationship towald me. I started a new life basically when I began my transition journey. Which included moving to a new Country. Just to give you an idea how much I wanted it to work. Hense I made sure she didnt know where I was. But at the same time I dont know where she is. Being honest I dont care as long as its as far away from me as possible.

       

      Ive changed all my important documents.

      As a matter of principal I would have liked to change my Birth certificate for the sake of doing it  really to complete the circle so to speak. Also the obvious things a GRC cert would provide. In reality the human rights and equality act does a lot of favours. However a GRC does add to protections

       

      Any info recieved with thanks

    • February 24, 2018 8:46 PM GMT
    • The wording of the revision to the passport act are quite clear, 

       

      3.5 Passports

      The Passports Act 2008, section 11, offers an important avenue for recognition of the acquired gender of a transsexual person. For this purpose, a person who is transsexual may seek a passport in their new name and have their new sex entered therein. This does not confer any right or entitlement not connected with the purposes of the Passports Act. For instance, it would not alter the legal gender of the person for the purpose of marriage law.  

      So the intimation is, one would have to have a GRC to comply with the marriage act.,.  that's why they have made the exclusion ref the marriage act, so in essence you can change the gender on your passport, but you cannot use your passport as proof of gender to get married without the GRC.   As far as I am aware one does not have to produce a GRC to any authority.   This is why some government departments require an undertaking that the change of gender is to be permanent.   A letter of confirmation from your GP should suffice, and goes back to the clause in the GRA *under medical supervision*

       

       

       

      Again the Gender Recognition Act is not complete in its entirety and needs to refer to other acts of parliments and judicial precedents that have evolved since the last update of the Gender Recognition Act.

       

       

    • July 16, 2017 7:40 PM BST
    • Any changes to the EHRC 2013 are not relevant to the requirements and definition to other UK Acts, such as the Passport act, Marriage Act, NH Act or DWP requirements unless those acts have also been ammended.     After makinhg all the required submissions one should be issued with a NEW NI  number by the DWP and NH registration number, all links to your previous identy must be ammended hence the new numbers.   So a letter from your doctor intimating that the change is permanent, if that is demanded that  is what you should do.   I changed my documents prior to the advent of the GRA, and for a number of years I had to travel abroad with the M marker on my passport, with an acompanying letter to substaniate why I presented as a female with a female name and a male gender marker.   Things have got a lot easier.

    • March 28, 2019 2:50 PM GMT
    • It would appear that correct and legal procedures were not adhered to, the approval for final ratification for an extension should have been laid before the house of Lords, revoking the leave date 29 March passed into law before adopting an extension.   I agree leaving will cause lots of problems, but the main thing about all this, both parties promised in their manifesto's they would honour the referendum result, democracy is at stake here.   I think it will be a long time before we see any party in parliament with a majority.

    • March 28, 2019 1:37 PM GMT
    • But surely she didn't agree to an extension which was “inconsistent with the intention of parliament”, as parliament had actually voted in favour of an extension?

      However Brexit happens, and it's probably going to happen, it's going to be a right old mess.

      For 50 years I've travelled, holidayed and later worked extensively across Europe. I can't begin to express my dismay that freedom of movement could well be removed.

       

       

    • March 27, 2019 5:28 PM GMT
    • Senior Tory Eurosceptics have written to Theresa May claiming her accord with the EU to delay Brexit may be illegal. 

      Sir Bill Cash, Suella Braverman and others tell the prime minister that MPs and lawyers have “serious legal objections” about Brexit being pushed to beyond March 29.

      It comes after May struck an agreement with EU leaders at a summit in Brussels last week to extend the UK’s membership until April 12 - or May 22 if she succeeds in passing her withdrawal agreement through parliament.

      May’s administration sought the delay after MPs voted for a Commons motion to extend the process. 

      A statutory instrument (SI), a parliamentary device used to create laws, will be used to officially remove the March 29 date from Brexit legislation and is due to be debated by the House of Commons on Wednesday.

      The Tory MPs claim May’s decision to seek parliament’s approval for the SI after the event “called into question the lawfulness of its actions and has (at minimum) created serious legal doubts about the legal situation surrounding the extension”.

      The MPs’ letter also makes separate claims about the delay.

      It states that May could have made unlawful use of the Royal Prerogative in agreeing to an extension which was “inconsistent with the intention of parliament”.

      Legal precedent suggested the PM required an act of parliament to use the prerogative in this way, they said.

      They complained the government had presented parliament with a fait accompli instead of “respecting the normal practice” of asking MPs to approve a binding international obligation in advance.

      They also said the extension violated the Vienna Convention because it was agreed “in violation of a provision of internal law”.

       It is written into our law by the royal accent that we leave on 29th of March 2019 at 11 pm precisely and unless royal approval is given meaning a new document to be signed and the old one repealed by parliament, house of commons green paper/ white paper submitted to the house of lords for ratification, it should constitute high treason by way of insurrection against the crown and their people and there simply is not enough time to do all that so I conclude we will leave on schedule without a deal

      Any suggestions comments?    Where is a Guy Fawkes when we need one?

    • March 23, 2019 2:50 PM GMT
    • Another example of people who ignore facts and interpretate things to suite their own way of thinking

    • July 3, 2018 6:28 PM BST
    • Got a bit heated and side tracked, but I think I got my point over in the end???

    • March 22, 2019 3:53 PM GMT
    • The EU has handed Theresa May two weeks’ grace to devise an alternative Brexit plan if her deal falls next week after the prime minister failed to convince the bloc that she was capable of avoiding a no-deal Brexit.

      After a marathon late-night session of talks, the EU’s leaders ripped up May’s proposals and a new Brexit timeline was pushed on the prime minister to avoid the cliff-edge deadline of 29 March – next Friday.

      Under the deal agreed by May, Britain will now stay a member state until 12 April if the withdrawal agreement is rejected by MPs at the third time of asking.

      The government will be able to seek a longer extension during that period if it can both “indicate a way forward” and agree to hold European elections.

      In the unlikely event that May does win the support of the Commons when the Brexit deal goes to MPs again on Tuesday, the UK will stay a member state until 22 May to allow necessary withdrawal legislation to be passed.

      “The 12 April is the new 29 March,” an EU official said.

       

      When did the bill pass through Parliament revoking the Withdrawal Act which categorically states that we will leave the EU, irrespective of any deal, on 29th March? A bill passed into law.

      Does parliament now intend to break the law?

      To revoke article 50, firstly a green paper prepared and presented in the house of commons, after amendments and being passed  then a white paper debated amended before being presented to the house of lords, debated amended and ratified and passed into law.   

       

      As one EU official has said, "The UK Parliament is unable [or unwilling] to deliver the will of the people".

    • September 9, 2018 7:49 AM BST
    •  Hi there.

      Whecrossdresn I finally admitted to myself that I was transgender and not just a crossdr

    • July 2, 2018 7:56 PM BST
    •  An extract from the ruling and summation

      OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

      BOBEK

      delivered on 5 December 2017(1)

      Case C‑451/16   

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Refusal to award a State retirement pension at the age of 60 to a transgender person who has undergone male-to-female gender reassignment surgery — Conditions for recognition of gender reassignment — Condition related to the obligation to annul a previous marriage)

        EU law

      5.        According to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7:

      ‘The principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on ground of sex either directly, or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status, in particular as concerns:

      –        the scope of the schemes and the conditions of access thereto,

      –        the obligation to contribute and the calculation of contributions,

      –        the calculation of benefits including increases due in respect of a spouse and for dependants and the conditions governing the duration and retention of entitlement to benefits.’

      6.        Article 7(1) of Directive 79/7 provides that:

      ‘This Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to exclude from its scope:

      (a)      the determination of pensionable age for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and the possible consequences thereof for other benefits;

      ...’

      B.      UK law

      1.      Retirement age

      7.        The United Kingdom has made use of the derogation allowed by Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7.

      8.        As stated in the order for reference, the combined effect of (i) section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 with the definition of ‘pensionable age’ in section 122 of that act, and (ii) Schedule 4(1) of the Pensions Act 1995, is that women born before 6 April 1950 are eligible for a State retirement pension at the age of 60, whereas men born before 6 December 1953 become eligible at the age of 65. 

      B.      The narrow question

      30.      It is not disputed that the benefit at issue in this case, a State retirement pension, falls within the scope of Directive 79/7. That directive prohibits any discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex concerning the conditions of access to social security schemes providing protection, inter alia, against the risk of old age. (6)

      31.      Is there a prohibited discrimination in the present case? According to the standard line of case-law of this Court, (7) for there to be direct discrimination, there must be an unequal treatment of a comparable group of persons to the detriment of the protected group. This must occur on the basis of one of the protected grounds, without any possible objective justification for such a difference in treatment.

      32.      For presentational purposes, in this section, I first assess whether there is a protected ground (1). I shall then turn to the comparability of transgender (8) and cisgender(9) persons (2), and the existence of unequal treatment (3). I shall conclude this section by looking at the impossibility of justifying direct discrimination in the legislative context of Directive 79/7 (4).

       

      A coda

      101. I wish to add five concluding remarks.

      102. First, from the discussion in previous parts of this Opinion, it became (hopefully) clear that this case is not about same-sex marriage. As recalled above, according to the case-law of the Court, Member States remain free as to whether or not they wish to recognise same-sex marriages. The problem in this particular case is, simply put, that a number of various conditions, if bundled up together, end up creating a rather peculiar (and from the point of view of EU law, problematic) configuration.

      103. Second, the answer provided only affects the benefits covered by Directive 79/7. It only applies to benefits unrelated to marital status.

      104. Third, this case concerns a unique and singular reality, which fits with difficulty into the traditionally binary divisions on which the prohibition of sex discrimination relies. The circumstances of the case must be placed in that perspective. It concerns a rather limited number of individuals facing profound challenges often in situations of vulnerability. It has to do with a complex human reality with which individual legal orders have struggled to catch up over time, and in which individuals often see their personal situation profoundly affected by constant legislative changes.

      105. Fourth, at the cross-section between the first and third point is also the nature of the requirement in question. Much has been said in this Opinion about comparability. But that, at times rather technical, discussion should not obfuscate the profound impact that the necessity to have one’s marriage annulled, in order to be recognised in a new situation that was hardly of one’s free will and choice, is likely to have on one’s privacy and personality, already probably shaken as the consequence of those changes.

      106. Fifth and lastly, but perhaps for the future the most important, the difficult issues of the present case arise precisely because, in the particular field at hand, namely that of retirement pensions, a derogation from the equal treatment principle persists, according to Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7. This is not only exceptional because it entails derogation from one of the most fundamental principles of EU law, allowing for direct discrimination based on sex, but also because it had already been expected to progressively disappear 38 years ago, through the convergence of the retirement ages for men and woman.

      107. As the referring court has stated, in the United Kingdom, the retirement age for men and women will gradually converge and be the same. Thus, there as well as in other Member States, the root of the problem is bound to disappear as well.

      V.      Conclusion

      108. As a result of the foregoing, I propose that the question referred by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom be answered as follows:

      Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, must be interpreted as precluding the application of a requirement that, in addition to satisfying the physical, social and psychological criteria for recognising a change of gender, a person who has changed gender be unmarried in order to qualify for a State retirement pension.

       

      Cristine say's

      Basically the court has ruled that each individual state has the right to impose restrictions rules in relation to what is termed a legal marriage and the conditions imposed within the scope of it's own GRA, in aspects of the marriage, but in this case the overriding factor is the unequal differential as to at what age men and women can apply for and receive their pensions.

       

    • July 1, 2018 9:32 PM BST
    • Not wasted at all Cristine. Your insight is there for others to read as well. It will be interesting to see how whether the gender discrimination in GMP is upheld in the Lloyds case and if so, whether this ECJ ruling will be mentioned. Thanks again,

    • July 1, 2018 11:29 AM BST
    • Angharrad, thank you for the thank you, No further comments from Racheal, some times I think I am wasting my time here, someone initiating a thread, ask a question and then nothing.

    • June 28, 2018 10:45 PM BST
    • The ECJ found that the UK's marriage annulment condition (designed to avoid marriage between persons of the same sex) is "unrelated" to the retirement pension scheme.

      And so it concluded that UK legislation "constitutes direct discrimination based on sex''  and is therefore in breach of European law

      In my considered opinion, put simply this was not a win for the trangendered woman, as it stands legally she is still male, the win was for discrimination against men in general, the emphasis of the judgement was discrimination based on sex under the equality and oportuniities act.

       

       

      The EHRC ruling is rather confusing, stating that pensions are not related to the GRA, and that it is a gender issue, does that mean now that men can apply for their pension on the same terms that women get an earlier payment.    So throughout the EU it will cost billions.   Technically until someone is lawfully recognised in their new gender hence the GRP authorising the issue of a new birth certificate.   Until 2013 same sex marriage was not recognised, which in my considered opinion now means throughout the EU countries will have to amend their gender recognition acts, acts that at the time of introduction were ratified by the European Courts of Human rights.   Vatican City a separate state within the EU is exempt from complying in the main with various laws especially same sex marriage based on religious grounds,    As is The Irish republic, Spain and Portugal.    we have seen that some states have been forced to drop enforced medical procedures to qualify for a GRC, but the EU does not enforce those countries that have not dropped these procedures.

      Which basically means that someone in each member state will have to  take up issues with their own legal systems and then appeal to Strasbourg for a ruling, EU Human rights laws, are lacking continuance, once a judgement has been made an edict should be issued ordering all member states to amend and add to their own acts similar to our UK Judicial Precedent.

    • June 27, 2018 9:48 PM BST
    •  

       

       

      The amendment to the 2010 marriage act, 2013, when applying for a GRC, by both parties signing a statutory declaration of mutual agreement to continue in the marriage a new status marriage certificate will be issued along with a new birth certificate. not to be confused with a civil partnership.

      Part 1 of Schedule 5 makes changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (the “Gender Recognition Act”). The Gender Recognition Act enables transsexual people to change their legal gender by applying for a gender recognition certificate under section 1 of that Act. The issue of a full gender recognition certificate enables recipients to be recognised for all legal purposes in their new gender (“the acquired gender”). Under the previous law, transsexual people who are married or in a civil partnership must end their marriage or civil partnership before a full gender recognition certificate can be issued. This is achieved by the Gender Recognition Panel issuing an interim gender recognition certificate to married applicants and applicants in civil partnerships, which causes the marriage or civil partnership to become voidable. Applicants then have six months from the date of issue of the interim gender recognition certificate to apply to the court to end their marriage or civil partnership. Once a marriage or civil partnership has been annulled (or a divorce or dissolution has occurred in Scotland) the court can issue a full gender recognition certificate.

      146.Part 1 of this Schedule amends the Gender Recognition Act to enable an existing marriage registered in England and Wales or outside the UK (“protected marriage” defined in paragraph 14 as a marriage under the law of England and Wales, or a marriage under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom) to continue where one or both parties change their legal gender and both parties wish to remain married. It also amends that Act to enable a civil partnership (“protected civil partnership” defined in paragraph 14 as a civil partnership under the law of England and Wales) to continue where both parties change their legal gender simultaneously and wish to remain in their civil partnership.

      147.Paragraph 2 inserts new subsections (6A), (6B) and (6C) which amend the evidence requirements in section 3 of the Gender Recognition Act. At present, section 3(6)(a) of that Act requires transsexual people who apply to the Gender Recognition Panel for a gender recognition certificate to submit a statutory declaration as to whether they are married or in a civil partnership. This enables the Gender Recognition Panel to determine whether to issue a full gender recognition certificate (for people who are not married or in a civil partnership) or an interim certificate (for people who are married or in a civil partnership).

      148.New subsection (6A) requires married applicants to include in their statutory declaration an additional declaration as to where their marriage was registered. This will enable the Gender Recognition Panel to determine whether the marriage is a protected marriage. Where the marriage is a protected marriage, new subsection (6B) requires an application to contain a declaration by the applicant’s spouse that he or she consents to the marriage continuing after the issue of a full gender recognition certificate (a “statutory declaration of consent”), or a statutory declaration by the applicant that his or her spouse has not made such a declaration. If the application contains a statutory declaration of consent by the applicant’s spouse, new subsection (6C) requires the Gender Recognition Panel to inform the spouse that an application has been made.

      149.Paragraph 3 replaces existing subsections (2) and (3) of section 4 of the Gender Recognition Act (which provides for the issue of interim and full gender recognition certificates following an application) and inserts new subsections (3A) and (3B) into that section. The effect of these amendments is to enable a full gender recognition certificate to be issued:  

       

      F311AChange in gender of party to marriage

      (1)This section applies in relation to a protected marriage if (by virtue of section 4(2)(b) or 4A) a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a party to the marriage.

      (2)The continuity of the protected marriage is not affected by the relevant change in gender.

      (3)If the protected marriage is a foreign marriage—

      (a)the continuity of the marriage continues by virtue of subsection (2) notwithstanding any impediment under the proper law of the marriage;

       

    • June 27, 2018 9:08 PM BST
    • Thats interesting! Do you mean Ammendments 68, 70 & 72 of the 2010 Marriage act which is only for those Married in Scotland? If not i would be grateful if you could post a link to the ammendments in English law as thats the only ammendment im aware of affecting this. I could be wrong hense i would like a link to it as im  sure many would have an interest including me Link here

       

       

       

       

    • June 27, 2018 12:41 PM BST
    • Because your birth certificate depicts your recognised gender in law, a fact true when registered,    If a person applies for a GRC when it's issued the birth certificate is then altered to reflect the new gender,  they are then entitled to their pension at an earlier age in line with a woman's right's, some transgendered married people do not wish to apply for a GRC because they are under the impression a divorce is required BUT under the 2010 marriage act revisions 2013 a person can apply for a new amended marriage certificate at the same time the new birth certificate is issued, with a change of gender, before one had to get an annulment or a divorce and then enter a civil type marriage, now it saves all that expense and heart ache of going through that process for those wishing to stay married.   When people start their transition, they should ensure that DWP and all agencies are informed, and original Change of name deed polls are sent.

      The definition of a legal original document (not a photo copy) so print of 10 or more copies, of the document get each one witnessed and signed then sign them all in front of the witness, now you have 10 original deed polls.   A person can't grumble if they don't want or can't be arsed to comply with a few simple lawful requirements.   Otherwise every Tom, Dick & Harry will be taking advantage of the system,

       

      People go to the trouble of changing their gender on their passports, driving documents, bank accounts, bank accounts, doctors and medical records, to get the recognition the want , need, why not apply for the GRC to get the pension?

       

      Why do some people think this is discrimination,  Is having to pass a driving test, pay NI contributions, tax is that a form of general discrimination???? IF ANYTHING THE PENSION SYSTEM MEN  v WOMEN IS GENERALLY SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT.

    • June 27, 2018 9:47 AM BST
    • A transgender woman who was unable to access her pension was discriminated against by UK! Whatever next? A collection of complete Starngers that calls itself the GRC panal telling you how you feel?

      You coundnt make it up

      Want to know more?

      Read on

       

      So where does it leave us? Have those who have not/will not  been discriminated against for not applying for a grc?

       

      Does this now mean a GRC is not worth the paper its printed on?

      Is the expense of applying for a GRC refundable as you have done this because they told you you had to? but in reality it is just another piece of paper to add to your collection.

      Other than changing but another goverment oreintated piece of paper as in your birth certificate which in itself is still crown property and not owned by you has it any use in this day and age?

       

      Are we really free or just owned by the state?

    • August 19, 2018 9:16 PM BST
    • To sell papers.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Truth and sales are usually at odds with each other.

       

      Alice

    • July 18, 2018 1:07 PM BST
    • WOMEN'S JAIL SHOCK Transgender lag ‘sexually abused four female prisoners’

       

      More trans front page sensationalism,   mis-reporting.

       

       https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6804433/transgender-lag-sexually-abused-four-female-prisoners-days-after-arriving-at-west-yorkshire-jail/

       

      The prison authorities decide where a prisoner is incarcerated, judges can only make recommendations, if the person has a GRC, then legally they are female and must be interned in a woman's prison, under the law and the EHRC one cannot be forced into corrective surgery, to gain that entitlement.

       

      What I am trying to say is men abuse women, men abuse men, women abuse men and they also abuse other women, why do newspapers emphasise Transgender as if one has to be transgendered  do these despicable things, 

       

       

    • August 14, 2018 2:22 PM BST
    • Reading back on this thread, I am wondering about the outcome.

    • July 19, 2018 10:49 PM BST
    • The papers today, claimed that because of their early reporting in other cases, referring to Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris,  William Goad, & Savile that other people came forward, Wrong.  Those people had already been arrested and charged before the rush of accusations, as reported today in several papers.   In this instance it was sensationalism at it's worst.   I believe until sufficient evidence has been gathered to charge someone the law should protect privacy, in this instance the BBC was tipped off by the police.   One paper even claimed that MP Chris Hunne case of perverting the cause of justice by allocation speeding fines to his wife would have been covered up if it was not for their early reporting, how absurd.

      If the media has prior information about such crimes, they should report it to the authorities, not take it upon themselves to publicly report it, there is the offence of failing to report a crime and with-holding evidence, perhaps perverting the course of justice, (prejudicial reporting)

      Typically the reporting of crimes committed by transsexuals always where sex crimes are the topic, the emphasis is on the gender change, as if that was the reason they commit such dastardly crimes.   Revealing information that by law is protected, previous names etc.

      When a Gender Recognition Cerificate (GRC) is awarded, it becomes a criminal offence to reveal the owner's transgender history. At present the fine is £5000. It is the individual who reveals the name, not the organisation for which they work, who will face charges. There are no exemptions for journalism as there are with the Data Protection Act. Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act was created with an "expectation of privacy" in mind.

      It is important for a transgender person to be able to wipe the slate clean, to live a life free from persecution. Provided they have no outstanding debts, their credit history will be erased. They will be entitled to a new passport and driving licence. There is even a fresh birth certificate to help them through life. All of this is to no avail if their previous and current name are linked on a website. When this happens, such a person has no choice but to change their name again if they want the privacy to which they are entitled.

      Whilst the legal position is not cut-and-dried, it is heavily weighted in favour of the transgender person. Even colleagues discussing a post-transitional person may be in breach of this law. Even before the award of a GRC, charges of harassment may be applied if the person is reported about on separate occasions using their previous name. Any article remaining on the internet following the award of a GRC may expose its author and editor to risk of prosecution.

      The award of a GRC is never publicly announced, of course. There have been no high-profile prosecutions under Section 22 but that situation is unlikely to last. It is best to respect the terms of the person's deed poll and refer to them by their chosen name only.

    • July 19, 2018 9:46 PM BST
    • I agree it was wrong. It will be interesting to see where the balance between privacy for the accuser & accused ends up.

    • July 19, 2018 12:16 AM BST
    • Whatever it was wrong, where is the innocent until proved guilty.   Or at least until a criminal charge is made against a person.   I know a transwoman that was accused of shop lifting, when they searched her house they lined her sex toys up in the bedroom window, during the search.   When she was taken down the police station, she eventually proved she was at work when the incident took place, the shop keeper identified her from a previous incident, when she was found guilty and got probation, she had never gone back to that shop, being too embarrassed,

       

    • July 18, 2018 9:23 PM BST
    • I don’t think the press went into the flat, but they had a helicopter which enabled them to view the search through the windows.

    • July 18, 2018 2:05 PM BST
    • https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6806161/cliff-richard-to-get-ruling-on-whether-bbc-breached-his-privacy-by-filming-child-abuse-raid/

       

      Why did the police allow the press into the premises to film the search in progress in the first instance, the basis of obtaining evidence is to preserve the scene/premises from contamination, this film would be judged prejudicial to any further case, 

       

      ''He said seeing coverage of the search at his apartment was like "watching burglars" going through his belongings and that he has never lived in the apartment again because it's "contaminated''

       

      He watched the live coverage unfold from Portugal and told the court he could see cops "going through the drawers" in one of the rooms.

      Reporter Dan Johnson had received a tip off from South Yorkshire Police about the raid.

      The star added: “What the BBC did to me was very wrong. I was portrayed as a sex offender around the world before I had even been questioned by police.”

      What if, they the police had found embarrassing but innocent items, unrelated to any perceived crime would they have held them up for the BBC cameras, laughed and shouted eureka?

    • June 1, 2018 9:35 PM BST
    • Quote

      ''Understandably, my wife believes that it is unreasonable for her to continue to live with me as a woman and now wants a divorce. She does not want to wait two years. Under current divorce laws, the only option she has is to divorce me is on the grounds of ‘unreasonable behaviour’; given that it would be ‘unreasonable’ for the courts to expect her to live with me in a lesbian relationship now that I have revealed to her that I have always considered myself to have been female''.

      Your admission is where the problem lays,   Matters of first impression was your only hope.

    • June 1, 2018 1:44 PM BST
    • I was going to throw my sixpence worth into the fray but I've decided not to comment on this thread at all because I don't feel qualified to do so.  I did A Level Law back in the 1970s and I remember Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co and Donoghue v Stevenson but that's about all.

      I think we're very lucky to have Crissie here because she really does know her stuff.

      And whatever happened to Julia Ford?  Is anyone still in touch with her?

      Hugs,

      Katie   :)

    • October 20, 2017 5:13 PM BST
    • Former member, Julia Ford, outspoken, no tact, but someone I loved dearly and knew very well,  a heart of gold,  Perhaps would have been the best Prime Minister this country ever had, for her basic honesty and ''Tell it like it is attitude''   but in defence of the originator of this thread, life is so much more complcated, people like us do try to conform and live up to what is expected of us, ''Social norms'' not understanding that change is inevitable, the unhapiness of trying to live a life that we did'nt subconciously want or need.

       

      Some  had a sod them attitude, this is what I am, accept it, some like myself starting out very young, confused, frightened, did come out, not with attitude, if my young life was miserable, I was in a It cannot get any worse situation, I realy believe that  people trying to live up to expections and a heteronormativity  way of life do not do it with intent to cause hurt and misery, or are even being nieve, their honest intention at the time, is just that and should not be deemed callous or deceptive with intent.

       

      Everyones situation, condition, is different, we must not jump to quickly to judge others, with a you must do it this way attitude.

    • March 19, 2018 10:10 AM GMT
    • Congratulations on staying the course! Xx

    • March 18, 2018 5:32 PM GMT
    • Well here I am 8 years later with my law degree, inspired by this site ''The Gender society'' basically shocked at the transgressions and bigotry heaped upon us as a minority group, hoping to specialise in the UK GRA and the Human rights laws relevant to trans people under the EU Human rights charter. 

       

       The UK probably has the most inclusive, relaxed laws of any country in the world,  to date 22 EU member states still have enforced medical procedures before they can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate,   Some time ago in a post I pointed out that in my opinion enforced medical procedures to qualify were in effect a contradiction to said Human rights, but Strasbourg had approved/ratified  each individual states gender recognition acts, We have seen a few people here making comments on other countries acts and stating what goes for them is applicable here in the UK, not so, if it was a standard across the EU act we would have been forced to adopt some of the more punishing aspect of other states acts.  many of them preceding the advent of the UK protection act referring to trans people 2004.   A member country is not guilty of failure to comply, as long as it complies with it's own act, until Strasbourg rules otherwise.

       

      Since then we have come a long way seeing our own act and other applicable acts being amended, one such instance is the 2013 amendment to the marriage act, allowing married couples to stay married upon application for their recognition certificate, if they complete a mutual  agreement form, then when the new birth certificate is issued for the person transitioning a revised marriage certificate (same sex marriage) is also registered, saving the heartache and distress of going for a divorce or annulment and a subsequent civil marriage.  

       

      Last year I attended a pre-seminar conference  the enforced requirement medical procedures requirement,   very happy to announce Strasbourg Ruling.

       

      ''The European Court of Human Rights today found that the sterilisation requirement in legal gender recognition violates human rights. Setting the legal precedent for Europe, this decision will force the remaining 22 countries using the infertility requirement to change their laws.

      This historic decision is delivered in three joined cases against France about the lack of self-determination of transgender individuals in the country. A. P., E. Garçon and S. Nicot relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, i.e. the right to respect for private life

       

      “Today is a victory for trans people and human rights in Europe. This decision ends the dark chapter of state-induced sterilisation in Europe. The 22 states in which a sterilisation is still mandatory will have to swiftly end this practice. We are looking forward to supporting those and other countries in reforming their national legislation.” comments Julia Ehrt, Transgender Europe Executive Director.

      However, the Court denied that forced medical examinations ordered by the national court (E. Garcon v France) or a mental health diagnosis (A.P. v France) contradict the Convention.

      “It is regrettable that cruel and unnecessary medical examinations are seen to be in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. We will continue to raise awareness about the human rights abuses in the medical field that trans people are still systematically subjected to.”, says Richard Köhler, Senior Policy Officer of Transgender Europe.

      The three applicants have been struggling for almost a decade to have their gender identity recognised by the French state. Before October 2016, a person who wanted to have their gender identity legally recognised needed to prove infertility and genital surgery plus undergo excessive and lengthy discriminatory examinations.

      The Court found that requesting proof for “having undergone a sterilising operation or medical treatment resulting in a very high probability of infertility, amounts to a breach by the respondent State of its positive obligation to guarantee the right […] to respect for […] private life.” Thus, states cannot demand from a person seeking legal gender recognition to undergo any medical treatment that would most likely result in sterility''     .https://tgeu.org/issues/legal-gender-recognition/

       

      The requirement to be under medical supervision remains, to qualify for ones Gender Recognition Certificate, this is self explanatory, it ensures, or should, that people are genuinely in need of the treatment they deserve, in this age of litigation and ambulance chasers in my opinion it is the right decision, we have already seen men interned in UK prisons for some heinous crimes now claiming to be transgendered to apparently avail themselves of an easier life in a woman's prison, eg Ian Huntley, the killer sex abuser of two very young girls.

       

       

       

    • March 16, 2018 5:54 PM GMT
    • Posted on 6. April 2017 in Legal Gender RecognitionPress

      http://tgeu.org/echr_end-sterilisation/

       

      Not that this applied to the UK,   No form of surgery is  legally required, but it proves just how diverse different EU member states have had their own GRA recognised by the EHRC something I have pointed out on numerous occasions when people have stated  ''according to Van Glock Germany etc etc we have the right to this and that and we don't have to do this and the other''  I stated in other post's 2010, 2013, in my opinion enforced surgical procedures were a violation of ones basic human rights.

      At the moment until a country member amends its own GRA, previously sanctioned by the HRC it is the law of that country until the HRC issues an order of compliance.

      The European Court of Human Rights today found that the sterilisation requirement in legal gender recognition violates human rights. Setting the legal precedent for Europe, this decision will force the remaining 22 countries using the infertility requirement to change their laws.

      This historic decision is delivered in three joined cases against France about the lack of self-determination of transgender individuals in the country. A. P., E. Garçon and S. Nicot relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, i.e. the right to respect for private life

      “Today is a victory for trans people and human rights in Europe. This decision ends the dark chapter of state-induced sterilisation in Europe. The 22 states in which a sterilisation is still mandatory will have to swiftly end this practice. We are looking forward to supporting those and other countries in reforming their national legislation.” comments Julia Ehrt, Transgender Europe Executive Director.

      However, the Court denied that forced medical examinations ordered by the national court (E. Garcon v France) or a mental health diagnosis (A.P. v France) contradict the Convention.

      “It is regrettable that cruel and unnecessary medical examinations are seen to be in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. We will continue to raise awareness about the human rights abuses in the medical field that trans people are still systematically subjected to.”, says Richard Köhler, Senior Policy Officer of Transgender Europe.

      The three applicants have been struggling for almost a decade to have their gender identity recognised by the French state. Before October 2016, a person who wanted to have their gender identity legally recognised needed to prove infertility and genital surgery plus undergo excessive and lengthy discriminatory examinations.

      The Court found that requesting proof for “having undergone a sterilising operation or medical treatment resulting in a very high probability of infertility, amounts to a breach by the respondent State of its positive obligation to guarantee the right […] to respect for […] private life.” Thus, states cannot demand from a person seeking legal gender recognition to undergo any medical treatment that would most likely result in sterility.

    • March 14, 2018 3:16 PM GMT
    • Under the United Kingdom Gender Recognition Act, trans people who experience severe gender variance, and have medical treatment for the condition, may apply to the Gender Recognition Panel(GRP) for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The GRC then entitles them to recognition of the gender stated on that certificate “for all purposes”. Where the person's birth was originally registered in the UK, the GRC may be used to obtain a new birth certificate. 

       

      (2) In the case of an application under section 1(1)(b), the Panel must grant the application if satisfied— 
      (a) that the country or territory under the law of which the applicant has changed gender is an approved country or territory, and 
      (b) that the applicant complies with the requirements imposed by and under section 3. 

       

      I think you will find that even if one has emigrated to Australia, the procedure is still relevant to the domain where the original birth was registered,  GRC's are not a view on demand document, only being needed for the revised birth certificate, the legal requirement for the change of gender and in accordance with the marriage act revisions.

       

      A Statutory Deceleration is required by the GRP, usually obtained from a commissioner for Oaths, or a Magistrate, not know if the GRP would accept same from a German authority.

       

      In my opinion if you have complied with paragraph 3. where relevant, supplied documentation, the act does not exclude registered practitioners from member EU states,   If you do nor want to send original documents, you can use photo copies, if they are certified by a commissioner of oaths as being certified copies of an original document.  eg, passports and driving licences. 

    • March 13, 2018 8:38 PM GMT
    • lynn harvey said:

      As I see it, living abroad brings a few problems with it regarding GRCs. The GRP seems to expect us to follow the rules of the country we live in when transitioning without apparently realising that, probably in most cases, these rules only apply to nationals of the country concerned. I live in Germany and, to judge by the info on the GRP homepage/directgov., I'm expected to comply with the so-called Transsexuellen Gesetz(TSG). However, even without the lousy translation on the directgov. page, I know that foreigners like me are excluded from this law unless our home countries do not allow changes of name, gender etc. Instead, as TGs we are expected to follow the laws, regulations etc. of our home countries, the reason being that, as far as the german government is concerned, changes of name, gender etc.etc. are national matters of the individual countries and Berlin is not going to interfere in such matters. There is even a law which makes it clear that the naming practice for foreigners resident in Germany depends upon the laws etc. of their home countries.

      I've applied for a GRC, I've informed the GRP that, as a foreigner/UK citizen resident in Germany, I am excluded from the TSG and that, where necessary, the relevant german authorities have accepted my interpretation of the law. Any day now the reaction (rejection?) should arrive in the post.

      Of course, quite how the GRP expects someone living in Germany, or wherever, to comply with the official UK transition procedures is a mystery to me! Are we supposed to keep jetting over to CX or wherever? As far as I am concerned, if the german health system is happy to treat me without reference to the TSG then I'm perfectly happy with that. I have to assume that all are acting within the rules.

      Whether I'll be given a GRC will be revealed at the end of March.........

      Lynn

    • December 18, 2017 10:04 AM GMT
    • As I see it, living abroad brings a few problems with it regarding GRCs. The GRP seems to expect us to follow the rules of the country we live in when transitioning without apparently realising that, probably in most cases, these rules only apply to nationals of the country concerned. I live in Germany and, to judge by the info on the GRP homepage/directgov., I'm expected to comply with the so-called Transsexuellen Gesetz(TSG). However, even without the lousy translation on the directgov. page, I know that foreigners like me are excluded from this law unless our home countries do not allow changes of name, gender etc. Instead, as TGs we are expected to follow the laws, regulations etc. of our home countries, the reason being that, as far as the german government is concerned, changes of name, gender etc.etc. are national matters of the individual countries and Berlin is not going to interfere in such matters. There is even a law which makes it clear that the naming practice for foreigners resident in Germany depends upon the laws etc. of their home countries.

      I've applied for a GRC, I've informed the GRP that, as a foreigner/UK citizen resident in Germany, I am excluded from the TSG and that, where necessary, the relevant german authorities have accepted my interpretation of the law. Any day now the reaction (rejection?) should arrive in the post.

    • October 23, 2017 3:07 PM BST
    • I am fully aware that certain items, e.g. Passport, have to be done in the UK. Everything else follows on from that- UK specific in the UK, Germany specific in Germany.

       

      However, nowadays everything's done via internet...........

      Lynn

       

       

    • October 23, 2017 3:01 PM BST
    • Just look at the brexit 'negotiating' team.........a minister who buggers off after about 5 minutes etc.

      I take abstract photos which generally are 'No title.' However, one now rejoices in the somewhat windy title:

      "HMG searching for a coherent, intelligent and sustainable negotiating concept for brexit...."

      It's a largely black pic with a simple flash of light down at the bottom.

      (I tried uploading but there was a 'technical problem....)

       

      Lynn

    • October 23, 2017 2:45 PM BST
    • Time passes...and here's a possibly interesting story. The new pass arrived and, armed with that and copies of my deed poll with a certified translation I started the process of informing authorities etc. The only place that was troublesome was the State Pension Authority who initially refused to accept the changes because I hadn't used the TSG (Transsexuellen Gesetz - I live in Germany). However, I politely pointed out to them that, in my case, the TSG doesn't apply (It applies to german citizens, recognised refugees , those granted political asylum, stateless persons, and foreigners whose home countries do not allow changes of name - none of these apply to me - I'm a british citizen and, as we all know, name changes in the UK are no problem at all) and, in any case, there's another law which states that names for foreigners depend upon the relevant laws in their home countries. A week or two later I got a letter from them giving me a new, female, state pension number! I gave the same info to my bank and they were no trouble.

      Now the next round of the fun is starting. As a consequence of the brexit vote, I shall possibly be applying for german citizenship. This will require a 'corrected' birth cert. which means a GRC - and the GRC board apparently expect me to use the TSG (see above!), if the the yougov info is anything to go by. A notary public has signed the stat. dec. bits, I've got all sorts of papers with my new name and status, including the call to breast screening(!), so in a few days I'll send it all off and wait with bated breath for the rejection(!).

      I live in interesting times!

      As to why I don't appear here more often- I may be on the pension but that doesn't mean I've got time on my hands what with my music, my photo-art, cats and long walks in the forest etc!

      Lynn

    • August 3, 2017 5:14 PM BST
    • "The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation.
      (Much worse than 'going blind!')
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*"

       

      The horror of this!!!  We'd all be headless by now!!

       

      Sure gonna miss you Crissie!!! (smile)

       

      Traci xoxo

    • August 3, 2017 4:05 PM BST
    • Attending a Seminar EHR Court rulings prisons and trans accomdodation I come back to something I wrote years ago in the general forum, oh I love research.

       

      In  Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death. Like THAT makes sense.)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      In  Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals, but is prohibited from looking directly at them during the examination. He may only see their reflection in a mirror.

      (Do they look different reversed?)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      Muslims are banned from looking at the genitals of a corpse. This also applies to undertakers. The sex organs of the deceased must be covered with a brick or piece of wood at all times.

      (A brick?)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation.
      (Much worse than 'going blind!')
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      There are men in Guam whose full-time job is to travel the countryside and deflower young virgins, who pay them for the privilege of having sex for the first time. Reason: under Guam law, it is expressly forbidden for virgins to marry.

      (Let's just think for a minute; is there any job anywhere else in the world that even comes close to this?)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      In Hong Kong, a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her adulterous husband, but may only do so with her bare hands.
      The husband's illicit lover, on the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.

      (Ah! Justice!)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England but only in tropical fish stores.

      (But of course!)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      In  Cali, Colombia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the first time this happens, her mother must be in the room to witness the act. In case he needs instruction?)

      (Makes one shudder at the thought.)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

      In Santa Cruz, Bolivia, it is illegal for a man to have sex with a woman and her daughter/son  at the same time.

      (I presume this was such a huge problem that they had to pass this law?)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      In Maryland, it is illegal to sell condoms from vending machines with one exception: Prophylactics may be dispensed from a vending machine only in places where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises.'

      (Is this a great country or what? but not as great as Guam!)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*

      Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.

      (Who volunteers for these tests?)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      The ant can lift 50 times its own weight, can pull 30 times its own weight and always falls over on its right side when intoxicated(From drinking little bottles of???)

      (Did our government pay for this research??)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      Butterflies taste with their feet.

      (Ah, geez.)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      An ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain.

      (I know some people like that.)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      Starfish don't have brains..

      (I know some people like that, too.)
      *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

      And, the best for last?

      Turtles can breathe through their butts.

      Crissie knows quite a few people that can actually talk through their butts.

      The writer is now in Guam …



        
      Last but not least its not illegal to place a fire cracker in your arse and set it off



    • July 4, 2017 9:13 PM BST
    • ...and Amazon!

      xoxo

    • July 2, 2017 11:50 PM BST
    • I take your point, but in the main people/companies that advertise with Google pay  for their advertising even if it is under the heading of Google. who obviously advertise themselves as purveyour of information relating to sales.    A similie would be Sainsburys advertising a brand of washing powder, knowing that the interest is profit based, leading brand equall maximum profit for that particular item.   Google do not necessarily own the companies that place the adverts, Google is now owned by Alphabet and will be reporting and trading in that name, but still in the group of companies owned by Google, traded seperately on the stock market as Alphabet.   A major share holder is the Chinese information bureau.   Oh and they have a spare 35 Billion cash in the bank to play with.   They could be considered morally corupt, but I do not think what they are doing is illegal.    Worldwide they provide thousands of jobs, which in turn help those countries ecomomies in what the labour force spends and the personal tax they pay to their governments on what they earn,   The British allready complain about the ammount of corporation tax they pay, but they do pay any Value added tax due in the countries they operate in.   Millions of people use Google Crome, YouTube and other internet facilities they provide, free.

      In Europe for instance, the UK in particular public transport is owned by private companies by area, the government do not allow other firms to operate in those areas in the main, so there is no competition, so if you need to travel you pay what ever is demanded It is a hostage related market for people who need to travel to work does the EU monopolies commisions make that illegal, of course not, the governments make corporation tax prfits from them, it is only because google use legal tax avoidance systems that upset the powers that be, like Cameron who inherited money using the same methods, did he volountarily offer to pay tax fue, no he complained about google and other si,milar companies that use legal tax avoidance systems which EU ministers and rich people use all the time.

      Google is probably worth more in assets and cash than some countries, and if they took a country to court, that country would probably go bankrupt over litigation costs on appeal.

       

       

      Invest Buy a few shares in Google lol

    • July 2, 2017 8:38 PM BST
    • The danger in allowing Google to be both the portal to the internet, which ought to be neutral and fair, and also being a profit center for their ad revenues is in the perceived conflict of interest.  So from the EU perspective, you can see why they are doing what they did.  In sports, it is called "house rules" where the "game" is manipulated to achieve desired results.  This means it is not fair and neutral at all but rather like a Euro football match where one team is playing on the road, has two players red carded, and a ref who spots "fouls" whenever it is convenient to get a call.  In Google's case, their supposed "search results" usually lead to a prominent placement that remarkably are tied to their businesses.  

      The danger in this for all of the world becomes the obvious potential for total manipulation of the population based on the agenda of whoever controls the internet.  One could literally rewrite history...

       

      1984

       

      Traci xoxo

    • July 2, 2017 2:12 PM BST
    • Google suffered a major blow on Tuesday after European antitrust officials fined the search giant a record $2.7 billion for unfairly favoring some of its own services over those of rivals.

      The penalty, of 2.4 billion euros, highlights the aggressive stance that European officials have taken in regulating many of the world’s largest technology companies, going significantly further than their American counterparts.

      By levying the fine against Google — more than double the previous largest penalty in this type of antitrust case — Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s antitrust chief, also laid claim to being the Western world’s most active regulator of digital services, an industry still dominated by Silicon Valley.

      “In Europe, companies must compete on the merits regardless if they are European or not,” she said on Tuesday. “What Google has done is illegal under E.U. antitrust rules.”

       

      Crissie says

      Does that mean Sainsburys and Tesco's, Aldi must advertise each others businesses?   must the local corner shop be forced to tell customers that a carton of milk is cheaper 3 miles away at the superstore.

       

      This all stems from Google heading up their own web pages with their own adverts.      WTF

      Does a local plumber who advertises his own skills have to pay extra advertising space to mention every other plumber in the EU ???    

      The EU continues to try and rule the world through it's own ludicrous aims and resolutions.