Stonewall hide organisations signed up as Diversity Champions

This has some suggestions:

www.mysociety.org/2018/10/05/my-foi-requests-been-refused-so-what-now/

Is there any way to challenge those types of responses to FOIs? I'm quite new to all this and know very little about the FOI process.

It is possible for the person who made the request to challenge the response, first by asking for it to be reviewed internally, then, if they are still unhappy with the response, to go to the Information Commissioner.

Anyone can view the correspondence, but only the person who made the original request can follow this up. Anyone else would have to start from scratch with a new request.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I think often charities do have 'commercial interests' in that they have some commercial activities which cross-subsidise their charitable activities (eg. I once worked for a small charity in local regeneration: some of the charity's funding was from central/local government, some was from the PCT, and some came from a rental portfolio).

It's a while since I had anything to do with the WEI (I was loosely involved in compiling our return, as an organisation which was not a 'Champion'), but my vague recollection is that paid-up Champions received a greater degree of advice and feedback on their WEI return, compared with those such as ours who just did the WEI. As such, I can imagine that there is a sensitivity around disclosing this feedback, as it is something Champions effectively pay for. OTOH, 'advice we've paid for' isn't ordinarily exempted from FOI.

Maybe someone can correct me on this feedback being a commercial thing anyway. Its very possible I was misinformed about the WEI perks of Champions!

SolidarityJo. 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. It won't stop us working for a world where LGBTQ+ people everywhere are free

twitter.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1394964853891158022

And one of the replies:

Their Diversity Champions are calling on them now they realise that Stonewall have deliberately misled them on Equality Law, they're also nervous about the child scandal of Transition kids that's brewing. All this on top of the realisation that Stonewall led lDE excludes LGB!

twitter.com/mc_simmy/status/1395265229857112065

Why the concern about other workplaces having an 'advantage' to work from. Surely other workplaces having good practices around employment of LGBT people is a good thing, isn't it?

Yes thats a VERY interesting point there. It would be good allround if more workplaces learnt from 'the best' if it was actually about being the most supportive place for people with various characteristics, etc. Its not some kind of secret competition, where those at the very top get a prize, and they must guard their inclusiveness well else thers learn to be as inclusive as that just ruins it all. I wonder if stonewall advised others to reply in such a way..

I don't actually get how they ca use the 'misunderstanding of the law' thing when it comes to the likes of single sex spaces. They did NOT misunderstand and surely noone reasonable would ever find that they did, given they actively campaigned for the removal of the exemptions. The same exemptions they knew were not removed, as they huffed about it a lot, but then suddely, they forgot they wanted that and that it didnt happen, and instead started thinking it DID indeed happen and now the law was what they wanted in the first place? Not likely..

I suppose stonewall will be currently taking the time to thoroughly check their materials for other possible 'misunderstandings' of the law, and contacting companies and such to let them know that the 'mistakes' are there and new materials used, new understandings had, maybe new training needed based on this, which I assume they shall provide free of charge, given it it their 'error'. Maybe they will even post a public apology, as its a very serious situation and they could have all those people who pay them for their names printed online..in a hell of a lot of trouble.

In relation to parts 1 and 2 of your request, we do not have a full submission available because any answers we give are uploaded directly on Stonewall’s platform. We type in answers to questions and for some questions we upload ‘evidence’, i.e screenshots etc. We have a spreadsheet which we used to organise our response and a folder which contains some of the evidence we used but the issue with this is that it follows a set pattern of questions asked by Stonewall and disclosing this (including the feedback we received in return) would prejudice the commercial interests of Stonewall as disclosure would undermine confidence in the Workplace Equality Index (WEI) and could give other organisations entering the WEI an advantage/benchmark to work from. As Stonewall charge for their services, it could also result in any competitors/potential competitors being able to template their services based on what Stonewall’s approach is (questions asked and feedback given etc). Furthermore, as the NMC wish to continue working with Stonewall, it would also prejudice our own commercial interests by releasing these details into the public domain as Stonewall may not have confidence in our commercial relationship if we started to share such information. Under the FOI Act, section 43(2) states that information which, if released, would prejudice the commercial interests of any party can be exempt if the public interest in favour of withholding the information outweighs the interest in disclosing.

There are a couple of things which stand out for me in the part I have highlighted.

What is the purpose of the WEI? Isn't it all about showing that a workplace is a good employer for those with the protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act? Why the concern about other workplaces having an 'advantage' to work from. Surely other workplaces having good practices around employment of LGBT people is a good thing, isn't it? And if all employers can gain this 'advantage', so that they can all improve their workplaces for their LGBT employees, standards will generally improve, and that's better for everyone.

This makes it look as though it's not about supporting equality at all, but is purely about competition to be at the top of the WEI. The main aim (improving workplaces for those who are LGBT) seems to have been lost here in a sea of commercial interests and competition with other employers.

And why is Stonewall, which is a charity funded largely by public money, so concerned about their 'commercial interests'?

I'm very concerned to see today that my university has signed up to the Diversity Champions Programme. I suspect training in being woke will be heading my way very soon.

Glad the times picked up on the stonewall angle. Their excuse seems weird, which high court case backs them up? Unless I have missed something somewhere, I cannot imagine the high court getting the law so clearly..wrong? I mean I guess it could happen, but there would have been some degree of fuss made surely..
Whats going on with Allison Baileys case? If thats due soon..is going to be a bumpy few months at least for stonewall. I wonder if they can 'thasts transphobic!' 'X agrees with us!!!' their way out of this, as logic wuld say no, but the climate of fear is STRONG. It may take a while, but I do think eventually the support will take a domino effect fall. Just, who is the bravest to go first..as they WILL be decried as homophobic, despite stonewall law/policies/etc being the most homophobic thing I have seen in my lifetime. Same old homophbia, but repackaged in bright sparkly bubblewrap, brought in on a shiney unicorn surrounded by puppies with a fanfare and much talk about how same sex attarcted people really really need stonewalls support at a time when homphobia is so rife, ignoring that the homophobia, is driven by fucking stonewall in many cases

It's very convenient that publicly funded organisations can refuse the release of information about where public money is being spent and on what for "commercial reasons". Stonewall is a charity benefiting from the lower tax rate and "gift aid" etc, not a privately owned company.

Is it a business, a charity or a lobby group?

The problem is the other protected characteristics require a bit of effort on behalf of the organisation like making physical changes to buildings or remembering not to make a role ‘redundant’ while a woman is on maternity leave. Those things are sooo annoying & boring amirite??

But according to queer theory, isn’t it boringly materialist to worry about things like ramps and lifts? Using a Stonewall definition of ‘intersectional’, aren’t all oppressed groups the same, so a rainbow flag = accessible loos and proper contracts for employees? (except obvs some are more equal than others).

The appeal becomes more and more obvious.

Exactly Tibtom. Stonewall are not a generic diversity organisation, they exist to promote (lgb) TQ, not the other protected characteristics. The problem is the other protected characteristics require a bit of effort on behalf of the organisation like making physical changes to buildings or remembering not to make a role ‘redundant’ while a woman is on maternity leave. Those things are sooo annoying & boring amirite??
Whereas sign uk to stonewall and all you need to do is eradicate “gendered language” issue everyone with a rainbow lanyard & tweet meaningless platitudes like “kindness costs nothing”. Hell it even gives you the rare opportunity to be legitimately rude ti customers if you suspect them of being (quelle horror) a terfy middle aged woman. Suspect them of that and you can tell them you don’t want their money/custom/votes. I mean it’s a win all round right?

Sorry if this is a repost. Not read the last couple of pages yet.

sheridansinclair.substack.com/p/what-happened-to-stonewall-uk

Trello board! Thank you for my new fact for today, congressdingo

(Not that there isn’t real and important human rights work to be done! Of course there is. But given Blunt’s track record with respect to women’s rights and his history of shady machinations to push an entirely other agenda in the guise of a human rights agenda, I worry this initiative is possibly not as benign as it seems.)

Diversity Champions list which could have negative repercussions for the business. Which no duh, you’re only allowed on the diversity champions list if you champion diversity?

Stonewall do not champion diversity. They champion their particular cause. Have you ever seen a Stonewall campaign in the last few years championing women? lesbians? christians? muslims? mothers? married women? those with limited English?

Can we put this on the board? I went to look for Nancy Kelly’s tweet about FOIs and found this.

mobile.twitter.com/JonathanCoopr/status/1394580835857227781

I won’t say what I think of Crispin Blunt or his motivations. But I will say that it would be bad to see him heading up an initiative to enhance international co-operation on woke authoritarianism.

But instead of string, rainbow lanyards.

I think we need one of those board they have on detective shows with all the photos and string, and a big Stonewall logo in the middle.

Another organisation using members fees to pay substantial sums to Stonewall.