FPFW: ONS concede defeat!

My reading is that one area set the guidance based on non-legal advice (ahem) and actioned the census, and then when the JR came up they took it to their lawyers and THEN realised they didn't have a leg to stand on.

I wonder how much of this is also age-related. Increasingly Zoom meetings and events are difficult to navigate. They started off with just the panel being pressured into including their pronouns in the chyron - and now they're "inviting" attendees to put their pronouns in their names in order to participate in the chat function etc. I notice that this is mostly young women announcing this 'invitation' so far.

I should think there is a fair amount of stealth capture by generation in play. Despite this, more senior personnel should be challenging incorrect procedures and guidance.

It all feels very Catch 22 and pledge of allegiance.

Yes, a charitable view might be that they just didn't realise how easily a passport or driving licence can be changed.

But that still doesn't explain why they didn't change it straight away once it was pointed out, rather than going to court.

Excellent work from Nic at FPFW. Shocking to read the link about Stonewall.

I heard this reported on the 2pm news bulletin on Radio 4, so all is not lost.

This is brilliant news - well done FPFW!

It says it all, doesn't it, that ONS weren't willing to defend at full judicial review? They knew this was wrong. Yet they've been so begrudging about acknowledging it.

It strengthens my hope that all the other examples of gender capture in institutions and policy will just come toppling down when they meet with judicial scrutiny.

There are going to be constant "dog ate my homework" responses to perfectly legitimate FOI requests in future, I think. Needs a crackdown and reiteration that your public sector duty as a transparent body is to comply with these unless there is a damn good reason.

Thank you so much FPFW, fantastic news!

Hard questions need to be asked about the wasting of public money by captured organisations promoting and defending this nonsense.

It just beggars belief doesn’t it.

ONS, the public body we trust with data, has, it says, lost all correspondence due to “staff changes”.

Yet, I have full confidence that there will be back-ups somewhere because I'd anticipate the ONS has to have this for mandated audit trails for pretty much everything - in the same way as the finance industry does.

If they were to argue that it would be expensive and onerous to retrieve this from back-up, they'll have to do it at some point.

This is such good news. Paper copy awaits!!

In March 2021 a Freedom of Information request was made for any correspondence between ONS and Stonewall “relating to conditions the ONS was expected to fulfil, including policies the ONS was advised it was required to change, in order to meet any standards set by Stonewall”.

ONS, the public body we trust with data, has, it says, lost all correspondence due to “staff changes”.

Just wow!

Well done Nic - and thank you.
That's dynamite what you have gleaned about Stonewall's roll in imposing their preferred ideology - at Cabinet level as well.

Will there be a concerted campaign from women's organisations to expose this? Surely it's corruption?

oh look - the ONS lost a Sex Discrimination case - a female economist was denied a promotion which went to a lower qualified male.Several other women had sex based complaints but didn't have the right union membership.

Bad day at the office for the ONS?

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/female-economist-denied-promotion-wins-sex-discrimination-case#gref

Fabulous News. Congratulations to FPFW for everything. I am so thankful.

Thank you Nic and congratulations

FANTASTIC
Congratulations!!!!!!
This is such an important win!!!

Hi everyone - Nicola Williams from Fair Play For Women here. Thank you for all your lovely comments and your support. I know many of you here will have donated to our legal crowdfunder. So thank you!

Here's a peek behind the scenes at ONS showing how Stonewall squashed stakeholder debate and who supported them.

fairplayforwomen.com/whos-behind-the-government-losing-sight-of-reality/

Seems the ONS doesn't like women too much - who'd a thought (referring to the employment tribunal upthread in Wales)

Will the Census still have the question that presumes everyone is a believer of 'gender identity'?

I heard an interesting snippet on Radio 4 the other day where someone from (I think) the Atheist Society was unhappy with the religion question.

He said asking the question 'What is your religion?' even when the first option given is 'no religion' results in more people giving a religion than if the question is 'Do you have a religion?'

They had campaigned for the ONS to change the question, and the campaign resulted in the 'no religion' option being put at the top of the options.

If it does get changed (in 10 years time) then I would be strongly in favour of a change to the gender identity question at the same time.

In fact, I think the questions should be:

What is your sex at birth? and 'Do you have a gender identity different to your birth sex?'

Thus people who identify as cis, and people who do not have a gender identity, would both tick no to that question.

Unsurprisingly not being covered by the BBC. At least the government are thinking about a media strategy (although not much else). By pulling out now the story is relatively dead for those media outlets which covered the interlocutory stage as "been there, done that" and won't be picked up by media outlets that were waiting on something substantive and final.

Well done !

PHEW... but also rather sad that they aren't going to argue their weak case in court.

GLAD that my monies now go to other FPFW campaigns and initiatives - they need all the money they can get and Nic Williams is a true Shero

Truly a DAVID AND GOLIATH contest..... though surely there must be two female protagonists I could chose instead?

It feels very damp squib that we have won (important) but that there was no judgement on ONS having to publicise what needed to be done now - nor, as I hoped, withdrawing earlier forms filled in (A LOT!!)... so under the radar ... Is there any chance a serious newspaper might do an expose of this? The institutional capture is extraordinary