Times Article on Stonewall#s Diversity Champion Scheme

There is a case against the CPS over their stonewall status supported by Safe Schools Alliance
safeschoolsallianceuk.net/legal-action-against-the-crown-prosecution-service/

The argument is how can the entity that determines whether or not to prosecute hate crime be linked to a partisan lobby group.

I wonder if it’s shone some daylight on to a festering problem.

I have been wanting to challenge my workplace on their status as a Stonewall Diversity Champion for some time.

Articles and opinion pieces from mainstream, reputable organisations, like this one in The Times, will provide useful evidence when I muster up the courage to do it. I'm also eagerly awaiting Allison Bailey's case progressing to the next step.

It'd be really embarrassing for the Guardian if they switched on comments for LGBT articles.

Being ratio-ed on your own paper. Imagine.

This is not hard. Public sector organisations are funded by the tax payer. They have to be impartial, and they have to abide by the law. Spending tax payers' money to join or promote any lobbying organisation is not something they can or should do.

The Stonewall website says: “The diversity champions programme is the leading employers’ programme for ensuring all LGBT staff are accepted without exception* in the workplace."

*Please note, exceptions apply to LGBT staff who criticise Stonewall.

In that while for the Stonewall points they need to have paid their subscription and had some stonewashing, does that actually mean they then have an increase in numbers of LGB and T staff?

I don't think Stonewall would care if they weren't the right kind of LGB or T staff.

Why are tax payers paying money to Stonewall who campaign to remove the protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation in the Equality Act?

It's not a charity anymore. It's a religious political lobbying group for gender ideology.

This. The Civil Service have a duty of impartiality, as well as the Public Sector Equality Duty. Why the hell are they actively paying a lobby group, who represent only one side of an extremely contentious debate, and who actively campaign to remove women's rights as enshrined in the Equality Act?

I had been wondering when this would go mainstream. Didn't think it would tbh, so I have a feelings something tipped the balance. My guess is that Stonewall is becoming something other and has shown itself to be anti-democratic.

“We work with over 850 organisations, all of whom share our core belief in the power of a workplace that is truly equal. Through them we’ve helped create inclusive and accepting environments for almost a quarter of the UK workforce.”

...whilst ensuring that the sex based rights of women and girls are shoved behind the nearest filing cabinet thus making workplaces less equal for the female sex. Again.

👏The comments section is glorious 👏🎇📢

Nancy Kelley, chief executive at Stonewall, said: “All employers, including public authorities, have a legal duty to reduce inequalities and ensure lesbian, gay, bi and trans people are free from discrimination at work.”

Why are taxpayers paying for queer theory to be rolled out?

Why are taxpayers paying for gender ideology religious proselytising?

I want to see a legal challenge to Stonewall being the 'official' LGBT charity.

A challenge to any taxpayer money going to them to erase women’s rights and boundaries, mandate dehumanising gender neutral language (menstruator), mandate mixed-sex public services, deny same-sex attraction (homophobia) and lobby to replace SEX with gender in all our laws, the Equality Act and the policies by which public services are run.

Why are tax payers paying money to Stonewall who campaign to remove the protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation in the Equality act?

It's not a charity anymore. It's a religious political lobbying group for gender ideology.

I wonder whether these diversity champions do have a diverse workforce? In that while for the Stonewall points they need to have paid their subscription and had some stonewashing, does that actually mean they then have an increase in numbers of LGB and T staff? Or is it all just posturing? And if they are truly going for diversity, what about other PCs?

I feel some FOI requests coming on...

Thanks OP

Going mainstream at last

Telegraph did an article too at the weekend www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4067182-Telegraph-Government-agencies-paying-thousands-to-become-Stonewall-Diversity-Champions