Ruth Hunt is leaving Stonewall

The 50k donation by Watson is pretty hefty in terms of individual donations historically.

But the charity have to demonstrate they are receiving a certain amount of personal donations, and that there isn't a collapse in them, to demonstrate their relevance and connection with the grassroots.

No one will check who made the donation when the financial go out.

But on a personal level it's self serving of Watson. His employability gets a boost due to his Stonewall links. He gets more money in his pocket because of it. If Stonewall loses relevance his gay creditials aren't a big deal anymore, and arguably it'd hit his income.

I certainly don't see the donation as being anything more than self serving in many respects. It smacks of a creeping desperation.

I don't know. As I say I'm speculating, but if the books do turn out not to be pretty....

Also it made me realise that Stonewall are more vulnerable to a big court case than you might think. They need donations of legal time more than you think if they were faced with a big law suit. They have about £5million in the bank, but that isn't going to last long if they have many repeats of 2017.

Is it the grassroots LGBT community still or is it their own nice little gravy train and the corporate cool?

See corporate networking event and details.
Worth looking at the 'template business case', Stonewall rely heavily on their often ambiguous surveys for leverage so will often cite as fact what is self reported opinion from a self selecting group.

www.stonewall.org.uk/events/stonewall-workplace-conference-london-2019

RTB, brilliant!

Is it the grassroots LGBT community still or is it their own nice little gravy train and the corporate cool?

I am sure there is a growing unease within the public sector about Stonewall's dual training/advice and lobbying roles, particularly since 2015 and the more aggressive trans lobbying. I suspect their Metro ad just before the GRA consultation deadline which included the logos of about 40 public and private sector organisations was a particular own goal. Association with such lobbying was probably illegal for the public sector, and I suspect some of the private ones were not too happy either.

I think Stonewall serves it own interests and the interests of those close to it.

I should add that I doubt Stonewall is particularly bad on the transparency thing, certainly compared to save the child. It's just there seems to be an overall issue with a lot of charities.

So earlier today this article caught my interest and got me thinking about a few things. www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-6737765/How-charities-spend-226m-fat-cat-pay-spin-doctors-running-costs.html
All in a good cause? How top charities spend £226m on fat-cat pay, spin doctors and other running costs – and claim it goes to frontline service

It says that what money is being spent on it being hidden by how the charity commission require accounts to be reported.

The article highlights how Save the Children claims to spend 100% of its expenditure on 'Charitable causes' to make it look like its spending it all on those it's supported to support and yet they pay their Chief Executive £200,000.

Are chief executives really charitable causes rather than a bog standard staff expenditure?!!!

So with that in mind it having got me thinking, I thought I'd have a look at Stonewall...

apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1101255&SubsidiaryNumber=0

Here's Stonewall's page on the charity commission website.

It's pretty vague. It says that 83% of its expenditure goes on charitable causes. So it doesn't look too bad on the face of it.

Income item
Voluntary - £1,332,140
Trading to raise funds - £3,526
Investment - £47,293
Charitable activities - £5,456,648
Other - £406,107
Total - £7,245,714
Investment gains 0

Spending type item
Income generation and governance
£1,273,841 17%
^Charitable spending £6,217,261 83%
^

So I delved a bit deeper into the actual annual report to see how it breaks down.

beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details?regid=1101255&subid=0
Here are the documents.

If you look through the expenditure for the charity, it's interesting where they do get their money from.

The last accounts filed were for the year ending Sept 2017. I believe the next accounts are due in March (something to look out for)

Anyway, this falls into Individual donations, Corporate donations, Legacies, Donated services and grants for charitable services. (Donated services comprise pro bono professional legal support, media services and gifts for catering)

Let's start with 2016 figures (this was up from 2015 BTW)
Individual donations - £1,359,199
Corporate donations - £218,761
Legacies - £155,214
Donated services - £6,368
Total £1,739,542

Grants £900,988
(Of which are government grants) £568,319

Total: £2,640,530

Compare with 2017
Individual donations - £943,460
Corporate donations - £104,698
Legacies - £96,611
Donated services - £187,371
Total £1,332,140

Grants £871,804
(Of which are government grants) £655,573

Total £2,203,944

So most of the £7. 2million into the charity which appears on the charity commission profile isn't documented as donations and grants. It falls under 'fees' or from assets.

The other thing I note in the accounts is the skyrocketing expediture on staff. This will cover staff for the running of the charity as well as training and raising money.

This comes in, in 2015 as £3,348,812, 2016 as £3,887,731 and 2017 £4,424,946.

In 2016 they had an income of just over £7million, in 2017 it was £7.2million.

And crucially, they made a surplus in 2016 but their expenditure in 2017 relied on what was in the bank account to cover it.

So a few things here;

1. Image is a big deal. There was a notable shift in 2017 in the donated services. This is connected with media and pr. In other words companies wanted to be associated with Stonewall. It plays into this liberal identity stuff.
2. individual donations aren't really a huge part of their income. Corporate image is important in both the fees they are generating and the donations in services they receive.
3. Government grants as almost as important as donations
4. Donations were down between 2016 and 2017 and there was an increased focus on corporate income which went up.
5. There is considerable rising spending on staffing
6. In 2017 Stonewall appears to have effectively run at a loss rather than a surplus. I stress this might have been been deliberate for some reason, and not a concern as there was plenty of money in the bank.

In terms of what Stonewall actually 'do', they are a service. They aren't providing anything physical like food, clothes, water.

I have to ask a crucial question when reflecting on those figures, who are Stonewall serving? Is it the grassroots LGBT community still or is it their own nice little gravy train and the corporate cool?

Reflecting on the article that got me thinking, it's arguably an increasing real gray area surrounding Stonewall and it's purposes and services in 2019 because ironically if they are successful then they should be reducing their expenditure not increasing it!

It's been stated before that their success is actually the biggest threat to the charity. They have to stay relevant for their services to be in demand and they have to have an image that appeals on a corporate level. I'd also argue this increasing dependancy makes them vulnerable to losing sight of their original purpose.

So why did Ruth Hunt quit?

Could the timing suggest something else to what's been speculated on so far in this thread? I remind you, that the next accounts for the year ending September 2018 are due next month.

Did the bubble burst in 2018 with a PR disaster affecting its corporate income?

Was 2017 just a blip or did the charity again blow a shit load in staffing costs in 2018 and did they have to rely on what was already in the bank account to cover spiralling expediture?

If that's indeed the case, would Ruth Hunt still have the confidence of the Trustees?

If 2018 was really bad in terms of the accounts, you'd expect the shit to hit the fan when the accounts came in to the board and just before they were due to be published with the charity commission.

Sometime in, oh late February perhaps...

I could be wildly off the mark but I will speculate that we should be keeping an eye out for those next bunch of figures...

Stonewall have continued to align and offer what seems uniquivocable support for Mermaids charity.

19/2/2019 Guardian 'National Lottery to give grant to transgender children's group
Lottery’s Community Fund will donate £500,000 over five years to the charity Mermaids'

(concludes)
Susie Green, the CEO of Mermaids, said: “The review process was very transparent and open, the community fund talked us through the steps that would be taken and gave full disclosure of the issues that were raised, and the progress of the investigations into the allegations made. We were given full opportunity to respond and discuss, and expected timelines for the review process itself.

“Mermaids is now looking forward to delivering the project in partnership with the National Lottery Community Fund, and are delighted that the outcome is so positive for us and the children, young people and families we support.”

A Stonewall spokesperson said: ‘This is fantastic news for Mermaids and this funding will make a huge difference in the lives of trans young people and their families in the UK.”
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/19/national-lottery-to-give-grant-to-transgender-childrens-group

Needmoresleep It used to be blamed on single sex schools, especially boarding.

Its more likely a reaction rather than recall as the site of bullying is unlikely to be with women, especially GNC and lesbians.

Last summer for whatever reason, actually a leaking pipe, I had issues with a gay neighbour I had got on with perfectly well for the last 20 or so years, and indeed I had built up quite a bank of favours owed. Not my fault at all, and I managed to get plumbers round within the hour, and the whole thing sorted quickly including repairing the damage to his property. My surprise was the aggressive, and bullying, reaction. No "niceness" at all. Instead really nasty emails involving unreasonable claims and threats of legal action.

I came to the conclusion that as well as male socialisation as a child, his adult social life appeared to be almost entirely male. Indeed in over two decades, and apart from his mother, I cannot recall spotting a single female visitor. In contrast to other gay men I know who have extensive networks of female friends. My assumption is that he was simply unaware that this sort of behaviour was unreasonable, and indeed, after his lawyer presumably told him he had not case, is now back to his normal veneer of friendly civility. I am polite back, but will not forget.

And its not just (some) gay men, who may show the signs of narrow socialisation as adults. I can think of a litigation lawyer in a male field whose behaviour out of work, and particularly to women including his wife, is bullying, patronising and selfish. Possibly acceptable if you are representing a high paying client against another equally aggressive client, but not elsewhere. Or perhaps some of Corbyn's inner circle. And perhaps for some, transwomen will make easier company because they share the same socialisation, so the perfect women substitutes.

'as someone with a masters degree in queer history i feel reasonably qualified to suggest that history will...'

That is a logical fallacy as it is an appeal to authority.

history will be much kinder to the lesbian chair of britain's largest LGBT charity than graham linehan, one of the most odious men on this hell site

One of these people will be getting royalties which will support themselves and their family long after death.
The other won't...

'as someone with a masters degree in queer history i feel reasonably qualified to suggest that history will...'

Someone REALLY overestimating the value of his degree there!

Lets not kid ourselves that they have gone away for good though.

True. They are just re-grouping and will come back. But they will be met with resistance.

Well it seems that some of those who have intentionally chosen to lower safeguarding criteria under the false premise of trans rights are in retreat.

Lets not kid ourselves that they have gone away for good though.

Huge thanks to you all for fighting the good fight.

I'm going to assume for many gay men the defence comes from a very visceral place recalling how they have been treated in the past.

Its more likely a reaction rather than recall as the site of bullying is unlikely to be with women, especially GNC and lesbians.

That some people who are bullied become bullies is a recognised pattern.

*underpin

I'm going to assume for many gay men the defence comes from a very visceral place recalling how they have been treated in the past.

I think that's understandable but those feelings are blinding them from some of the unpleasant truths that unpin what is happening due to trans ideology. It's going to be a shock to the system when history does not look kindly on those who pushed unthinkable medical harm on young bodies.

as someone with a masters degree in queer history i feel reasonably qualified to suggest that history will be much kinder to the lesbian chair of britain's largest LGBT charity than graham linehan, one of the most odious men on this hell site

Queer theory might encourage such a belief and embolden students to claim their beliefs as fact.
But... nope.

Hmmmm I have found that gay men tend not to really like lesbians all that much (and believe that they don’t like them first, so they won’t like them back). Could this be a reason?

There seems to be a lot of angry gay men often with misogynistic atitudes very invested in visbibly protecting trans ideology.

The Stonewall ally program has been very effective.

masters degree in queer history a what now? 😳😂🤪🤪🤪

Is that a real degree? As someone with an arts degree I’ll start...

“Does your mortar board come with with mickey mouse ears?”
“Do they teach you how to ask ‘do you want fries with that’”
“Bwahahahahaha, what a joke course”

Owen Jones flagged the poll up to his followers

Owen Jones 🌹
‏*@OwenJones84*
Feb 24
More Owen Jones 🌹 Retweeted Anthony Watson
A gay man who knows what it's like to be hated by the media, who knows what it's like to fear being abused in the street, is being threatened with legal action - because he called out a straight guy waging a one-man campaign against trans people. Show solidarity: vote and share.

Also:

Owen Jones 🌹 Retweeted

Patrick Strudwick
‏*@PatrickStrud*
Any gay person thinking they can afford to sit out the “debates” happening over trans people, know this: transphobes aren’t just coming for trans rights, they’re now coming for everything LGBT. They want to rip us apart. Divide. Override.
We have one option: to resist. Together.

And

Graham Linehan
‏*@Glinner*
Call me a bigot as much as you want @Jan_Gooding I think most can see the damage your ideology does to gay people. History will not be kind to you.

Owen Jones 🌹 Retweeted

Louis Staples
@LouisStaples
as someone with a masters degree in queer history i feel reasonably qualified to suggest that history will be much kinder to the lesbian chair of britain's largest LGBT charity than graham linehan, one of the most odious men on this hell site

It's almost like it's deliberate isn't it.

It's almost like there's a benefit in it for them. I mean, why would men with paraphilias want to reduce safeguards involving children?

ponders

Isn't it odd how men set themselves up as arbiters of issues that affect women?

There is a systemic failure to uderstand Safeguarding frameworks

It's almost like it's deliberate isn't it.

It seems rather naive and childish.
I think Anthony Watson commented that he had been bullied previously.

Mr Watson also seems also not to understand Safeguarding along with influential TRAs such as Aimee Challenor, Susie Green, Tara Hewitt, Jane Fae, Stephen Whittle etc

There is a systemic failure to uderstand Safeguarding frameworks intended to protect children and vulnerable adults amongst trans/queer activism.