Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Stonewall hide organisations signed up as Diversity Champions

138 replies

MrsOvertonsWindow · 19/05/2021 13:32

This morning Stonewall have hidden the list of all the organisations signed up to their diversity champions award behind a member's log in. Could this be connected to the Essex University report confirming that they have been offering wrong advice about the law to organisations? Are companies getting cold feet about being openly connected to them?

Recommendation from the Essex Uni report:
The University should give careful and thorough consideration to the relative benefits and disbenefits of its relationship with Stonewall, bearing in mind the issues raised in this report. In particular, it should consider that this relationship appears to have given University members the impression that gender critical academics can legitimately be excluded from the institution.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
HeadIsFucked · 20/05/2021 23:09

"We have determined that this information isn't in the public interest because too many members of the public are interested in it."

Interesting., and yeah it reads that way to me too tbh. Meanwhile, it seems Sussex police are taking time to 'assess the public interest in regards to this disclosure'

FOI is not something I know anything about, but is that kind of reply usual? Where you just get 'I disagree with your reasons for asking, and think you are doing it for X and you are just a nasty pasty so nahhhh'?!

Stonewall is clearly involved in the replies here.

Tibtom · 20/05/2021 17:34

Now I want to know how many ghosts our local hospital have...

Erikrie · 20/05/2021 16:59

"We have determined that this information isn't in the public interest because too many members of the public are interested in it."

Well it clearly is in the public interest then isn't it. Best get busy stonewall. As answers are required.

Cwenthryth · 20/05/2021 16:45

how many ghosts does your hospital have?
Grin At least that would give some light relief for the FOI person composing the response. “I am very sorry, but the trust does not maintain records of any non-corporeal spirit population that may frequent our premises”.

ShamedBySiri · 20/05/2021 16:19

Is there such a thing as vexatious FOI requests I wonder?
For a short while (on secondment) I sat next to the FOI person at my hospital. I think they fall mainly into three or four categories: genuinely seeking information about something eg post op infection rates, journalists and similar fishing - probably the most annoying to deal with as they will be a very wide ranging question, or with several sub questions attached, and those who might have an axe to grind (or be vexatious) or just be a bit bonkers eg how many ghosts does your hospital have? Confused

ethelredonagoodday · 20/05/2021 16:06

Apologies, I've not read the full thread, but I wonder if private eye might pick this up...

OldCrone · 20/05/2021 16:00

Is there such a thing as vexatious FOI requests I wonder?

There is. This is the ICO's document on 'Dealing with vexatious requests'.

ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 20/05/2021 15:53

[quote Mollyollydolly]This thread from Legal Feminist is good. I fear Nancy has assured lots more FOI requests coming their way.
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1395376169374162957[/quote]
Well that is interesting...

Is there such a thing as vexatious FOI requests I wonder? That response sounds very much like it was written in conjunction with Stonewall Grin

allmywhat · 20/05/2021 15:48

[quote Mollyollydolly]This thread from Legal Feminist is good. I fear Nancy has assured lots more FOI requests coming their way.
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1395376169374162957[/quote]
"We have determined that this information isn't in the public interest because too many members of the public are interested in it."

That ought to go well for them.

Mollyollydolly · 20/05/2021 15:23

This thread from Legal Feminist is good. I fear Nancy has assured lots more FOI requests coming their way.
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1395376169374162957

Cwenthryth · 20/05/2021 15:14

How can it be right that EHRC advise Stonewall who advise EHRC?

Tibtom · 20/05/2021 14:50

@Triphazards

Sign up to Stonewall.

Discretion assured.

But watch out because if you fail to do as instructed there will be 'reputational damage'
MiddlesexGirl · 20/05/2021 14:28

That ACAS is signed up is shocking.

Triphazards · 20/05/2021 13:51

Sign up to Stonewall.

Discretion assured.

Abitofalark · 20/05/2021 13:39

The Times education editor, in the article linked to above states
"Stonewall provides expert advice to hundreds of organisations, including employers, schools, universities and police forces, through its “diversity champions” programme."

I'd very much like to know her reason for attributing expert status to Stonewall's advice. Doesn't she know that the expert body is the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

Interesting to note the same article quotes Stonewall stating that it gets its legal advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and that it has been upheld in court.

By the way who do you think is a member of Stonewall's list? The Equality and Human Rights Commission.

And so is ACAS, the official body for improving and disseminating standards of practice and procedures in the workplace, providing employment advice to individuals and organisations, writing and upholding codes of practice and resolving disputes.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/05/2021 13:26

At best wildly misrepresent our work, at worst are totally accurate?

Grin
TheHandmadeTail · 20/05/2021 13:24

Absolutely. And given they misrepresent the law to so many companies and encourage a climate in which women have to carefully choose and account for every word they speak and write and still have their words twisted by Stonewall and so many in the media, it’s a bit fucking rich.

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 20/05/2021 13:18

At best wildly misrepresent our work, at worst are totally accurate?

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 20/05/2021 13:18

At best wildly represent our work and at worst are completely accurate?

TheHandmadeTail · 20/05/2021 13:14

At Stonewall we have to expend huge amounts of time on a never ending round of complaints, FOIs, and round robin letters that at best wildly misrepresent our work.

Oh the irony.

highame · 20/05/2021 12:39

Given that Stonewall are a little out of kilter with the Law, I assume any complaints about FOI requests will take them by surprise

OldCrone · 20/05/2021 12:21

One more link about following up on a FOI request.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/unhappy

The internal review can be done on the What Do They Know site if that's where you made your original request, and it means any replies will also appear on the site.

Referral to the Information Commissioner has to be done directly. It will be published on their site when the process is complete, but won't be automatically linked to the original request on What Do They Know.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/05/2021 12:11

A guide to the "commercial interests" exemption.

ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi-guidance/section-43-commercial-interests/