Found this on twitter

Interesting. It could be a completely insignificant thing - as the article says, just a way of saving time and resource in compiling the entry. Or it could be an indication of Nottingham's disillusionment with Stonewall. Wasn't it Nottingham who decided to make misogyny a hate crime? I wonder if their eyes are being opened.

I suspect it's related to money and the need to be seen to investing in better race relations at a time when tensions are heightened and BLM are making a lot of noise about defunding the police and other structural change.

Budgets only stretch so far so I think it's about taking it from one diversity pot to put it into another.

I saw a police vehicle with masses of logos, including Stonewall. I wrote to our Police and Crime Commissioner to find out whether this affected the independence of the Police. I think there has been a big re-think after a court case on free speech (can't remember the details) but the judge said we were not a NAZI state. I know the police were glad to have some direction within the law.

I hope I haven't confused things. Diversity needs the budget to go across the piece and not to the loudest voices.

The force can't confirm the exact time it took for staff to compile the information to submit a Stonewall application, however, we can say it took *the equality and diversity officer at least three months to input the relevant data.*

"The cost for submission was in the excess of £1,000."

In 2018 our ranking decreased very slightly by four points to 39th out of 434 employers.
“This was due to the changes in the assessment cycle and the additional criteria included within the index to promote trans+ inclusion.

Hope other forces follow suit. Talk about the tale wagging the dog.

I see. Perhaps I misunderstood.

I do think the whole index is a bit of a ponzi scheme. Maybe they realised this.

It is interesting- there's a whole industry out there where you pay to prove your credit. I would think the more general ones which include human and employment rights were as effective.

Nottingham is the first force to collate misogynistic hate crimes. However they also have an outspoken 'women's' centre which prides itself on having been inclusive of trans women. Very anti JKR. Bothered to make a public statement about it.

I would imagine that as the Police attend a lot of domestic violence call outs and see who the perpetrators of violent crimes are first hand, that there may have been push back from officers on the ground saying these are not the only people we need to protect and it’s wasting time that could be spent on much larger minorities. I’ve never met a Police officer who was backwards in coming forwards.

Nottingham is the first force to collate misogynistic hate crimes. However they also have an outspoken 'women's' centre which prides itself on having been inclusive of trans women. Very anti JKR. Bothered to make a public statement about it.

The one for self-identifying women?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3678957-Nottingham-Womens-Centre-events-are-for-all-self-identifying-women?pg=1

The sooner all police forces and other organisations realise that they can work on diversity and inclusion without these mad schemes the better. Stonewall doesn't 'own' diversity.

I am genuinely wondering what they have to do. I mean presumably once they have implemented stuff that stuff wont change so what is the ranking based on. What are the criteria

I imagine that there is an ongoing work 'burden' of keeping up with Stonewall policy, definitions and requirements for what is submitted, checking you have an audit trail for it all, supporting evidence etc just to come out with a ranking that one may perhaps view as somewhat arbitrary. As they say in the article '“There is a financial cost to it, both in participation but also in the time your employees take to compile and comply with its requirements." Would be interested in reading the criteria too and whether they change year on year - I've found this one from 2017.
www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stonewall_wei_2017_guidance.pdf

"2016 marked the first time Stonewall included trans criteria in the Workplace Equality Index. Specific work on trans inclusion will be monitored in the 2017 Index, but those questions will not count toward organisations’ final mark. This is to allow time for employers to implement trans specific work in a safe, legal manner.
From 2018, trans specific questions will count toward final marks, and organisations that cannot demonstrate specific commitments to trans equality will be unable to be listed as a Top 100 Employer. "

I tried, I really did, but my brain kept melting. So I don't know what the criteria are. It takes a special kind of person to engage with that kind of language.

I assume the guidance accompanies the actual questionnaire or whatever the submission is, so would need to be read in conjunction (as per tax returns etc)

So their diversity officer spent 3 months just doing the application...

Looks like they realised that their time and energy was being monopolised by one area and they wanted to balance more with other protected characteristics -age sex disability etc while still keeping LGBT+ etc in there as well.

Good for them.

I hope others follow suit.