#DontSubmitToStonewall - suggested quick action by Legal Feminist

That is interesting Brizzle. Brilliant.

Interesting to see the reply to this!!!!

• Dear Lancaster University, This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Please provide any information that you hold answering to any of the following descriptions: Any correspondence between Lancaster University and Stonewall in 2021 relating to the formulation of a response to the Freedom of Information request that was submitted to Lancaster University on 4th February 2021.*

there's been at least one email from Stonewall to an authority stating that the FOI disclosure could cause "reputational damage".

Wow. And why would that be Stonewall?

Although we acknowledge the general public interest in transparency and providing a full picture, to release this data would prejudice the university's ability to obtain value for money from a paid-for service.

Does this mean “We know accountability to the public is important, but if we go against Stonewall, they will no longer work with us in a way that will give us value for money”?

Seems a very odd statement, but perhaps someone can suggest a more innocent explanation of what it means.

Nancy Kelley CEO Stonewall says she's spending huge amounts of time on the public bodies FOIs.

Is Nancy/Stonewall vetting the FOIs? writing FOI replies? telling the public bodies that answering the FOI could cause "reputational damage"?

What I really don't understand is how some Authorities get away with declining

there's been at least one email from Stonewall to an authority stating that the FOI disclosure could cause "reputational damage".

Who knows? there may be more than one authority diversity champion being told by Stonewall that FOI disclosure could cause "reputational damage".

I think they know which loopholes to exploit. For example:

'under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ... disclosure would to prejudice the commercial interests of the university. As section 43 is a qualified exemption, we have conducted a Public Interest Test to determine where the public interest lies. Although we acknowledge the general public interest in transparency and providing a full picture, to release this data would prejudice the university's ability to obtain value for money from a paid-for service. The university has therefore concluded that the public interest is best served by withholding this information under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.'

What I really don't understand is how some Authorities get away with declining! When a similar body in a different area is very open.

What the hell are they hiding???

Why has this not been picked up by a national newspaper?

Ah yes. I just searched Stonewall not the hashtag.

But there are now 800 #dontsubmittostomewall

I see 790 on the search function for

Dontsubmittostonewall

And one with the apostrophe

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dontsubmittostonewall_4

Could be my search text though!

I've come late to the party but is it really over 1,000 Stonewall FOI requests????

This is quantifiable money! Our money! Tax payers money that is not going into how to resolve the pay gap, or the lack of women's toilets, or why there are so many black mothers loosing their lives giving birth, or indeed on funding trans refuges or prison wings.
It is a haemorrhage of those paving stones that take you to hell!

Oh my!

That's why they have hidden the list of sponsors, so we cannot add it all up.

public bodies can get an exemption from a vexatious requests, which this isn't. wonder from the ICO will do...

could be why Stonewall are spending so 'much time on FOI requests'...

New Legal Feminist Thread on Stonewall FOIAs:

This FOI response from
@NHSBSA
to a #DontSubmitToStonewall request makes surprising reading: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/725207/response/1763098/attach/5/No%20Disclosure.pdf

Another body that appears not to understand that the risk of reputational damage when your activities come to light is much of the point of the Freedom of Information Act.

Or that FOIA is "purpose blind": if you ask a public authority for information, and none of the exemptions applies, they have to provide it. It doesn't matter why you want it.

The
@nhsbsa
makes the same mistake again at ¶2 of their response:

At ¶3, the writer borrows a concept ("fishing") from disclosure in litigation - to which very different principles apply.

He also complains that the request doesn't describe the information sought, which is odd because many other public authorities have had no difficulty comprehending identically-worded requests, and responding fully.

Then at ¶4 he complains that the request is not in the spirit of FOI.

This calls to mind the attempt by the hapless lawyer in the Australian film 'The Castle' to rely on "the vibe" of the Australian constitution;

Finally, the writer says the information is of little or no value to the public.

If
@nhsbsa
had thought of an arguable exemption to rely on, there might be a balancing exercise to which public interest could be relevant. But "the information you're asking for is boring and unimportant" is not in general an answer to a FOI request.

As so often: the information itself may not be terribly interesting. What draws the eye is the attempt to hide it. End/

Looking back at this thread, I still find the MoJ response positively terrifying and wonder if this stone being turned might reveal capture we would be really concerned about (not that the rest isn't).

and also inclusion of 'prefer not to state' in total of disclosure rates.

Again, ridiculous. If people prefer not to complete monitoring then that's their choice. The scale of opting out is very relevant to the analysis.

People don't want their private lives to be MONITORED at work. They don't want to engage with it.

Unfortunately could not award for some of the data analysis, for reasons including erasure of non-binary identities in pay analysis, and also inclusion of 'prefer not to state' in total of disclosure rates.

This is ridiculous isn't it? The GPG gap compares male and female so there's no way of using any non-binary identities in pay analysis! Same with equal pay legislation.

go John Brown!!

I'm on universities now.. Oxford University £2500 to be Stonewall Champion - membership continuing this year.

University of Salford £2500 membership continuing

Cardiff University seem to have a more expensive deal:
2018/19 - £6,812.05
2019/20 - £6,300

membership until Sept 2021.

Reading University, I'm not sure what they spent but they got a ticking off for using 'gendered terms' in relation their family policies - they mentioned 'employee of either sex'

Who funds universities again......???

Good grief (sorry I'll go and do something else in a minute) - the 'Kernow Clinical Commissioning Group' (Cornwall) paid £9966 in 2020 to Stonewall. Apparently they are waiting for further funding to be approved, because obviously they've got soo much money sloshing around..

Despite all that money and apparent effort they put in, the Cornwall CCG received this feedback - slap on the wrist for them!

Trans Policy - Nothing offered - No policy/policies to support trans employees, including people with NB IDs. Stonewall has guides to help develop this and will review policies before final publication. Would like to see that organisations have gone above and beyond the law in doing so and talk about different identities.

The government money is what gets to me really, especially as Stonewall have received so much government money in the past, though I'm hoping that since their definitions, practices and widespread influence is now well known in the halls of Parliament it won't be quite so much in coming years.

It is taxpayer money after all.

The NHS FOIs are quite interesting in general and there is a prolific FOI Requestor named John Brown who joined in 2016 who has done 1,300 FOIs!

I'm having enormous fun with my FOIs. I'm so rock n'roll!

I'm going to join you - it is fascinating to have a browse through....

thanks for the reminder - it is quite interesting having a little browse on whatdotheyknow.com.

The Bristol NHS CCG spent £2500 on Stonewall membership in 2019!

The CQC unilaterally decided to remove Sex as a protected characteristic from their HR Equalities policies and have apparently decided that it is not a problem!!

HM Land Registry spent £3,000 in 2019

and then £6418.80 in 2020 but they won't tell us what for, claiming disclosure exemption being detrimental to Stonewall's commercial revenue.....

(Isn't a bit dodgy that government departments are spending money with external organisations but won't tell us what it is for?)

BUT their Stonewall membership expired in Feb 2021 and they haven't yet decided whether to renew it or not. Is there hope??

I don't think the private sector have the same responsibilities to respond to such requests but I see now reason why you couldn't use the text to ask similar questions. There are legal responsibilities around single sex facilities and it would raise awareness of the exemptions that are permitted under the EA2010.

I'm having enormous fun with my FOIs. I'm so rock n'roll!