Mick Hartley

Meanwhile, in Clapham:

The founder of a women’s society at the University of Cambridge is threatening legal action against a pub in what campaigners say may become a test case on the rights of gender-critical customers.

Thea Sewell, a philosophy student, is one of three female students who last October set up the Cambridge University Society of Women, which admits only biological women as members. She has spoken publicly about the personal attacks she has faced from fellow students after it was discovered that she had bought books by gender-critical authors.

This week Sewell, 20, sent a “letter before claim” — formal notice of an intended legal action — to the Prince of Wales pub in Clapham, south London, alleging that bar staff had refused to serve her because of her views on transgender issues. The letter warns the pub that court proceedings may be brought.

Sewell is demanding an apology and £2,500 in compensation. She said in the correspondence that, when she went to the pub near her family home in London in January, she was told: “You’re not welcome here.”

When she asked why, Sewell said she was given an explanation to the effect that it was because of her “horrible” views on “vulnerable trans people”.

She said she had been “deeply embarrassed” by the rejection and had agreed to leave to save her companion from any further distress. Sewell said that when she returned later that evening to seek “further clarification” from bar staff, she was told: “You’re not allowed in here.”

Sewell said that when she protested, saying that it was unlawful under equality laws to refuse to serve someone on the basis that they held gender-critical views, the same staff member said she was barring Sewell because the bartenders “did not feel comfortable” serving her.

Good luck to her.

Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at the sex-based rights charity Sex Matters, said that Sewell’s legal action could have implications for service providers across the country: “Trans activist groups’ longstanding misrepresentation of the law has led to the widespread misconception that it is legal for service providers to discriminate against people with gender-critical beliefs.

“Thea’s case will be an important test for upholding the rights of people who reject gender ideology. It should ring alarm bells for pub owners, shopkeepers and anyone else who provides services to the public that it is not lawful to behave in this bigoted manner towards people who hold perfectly ordinary, factual beliefs.”

Absolutely. Factual beliefs.