Stonewall hide organisations signed up as Diversity Champions

Interesting, I wonder if that is why so many of the FOIs weren't answered, using exactly the same wording about commercially sensitive or something....

Funny. I was looking at the response from the Nursing and Midwifery Council and they cited commercial sensitivity....

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/informationabouttyourdealingss274?nocache=incoming-1789448#incoming-1789448

Nancy Kelley’s been tweeting about how many FOIs Stonewall have to deal with, except that as a non-public organisation they’re not subject to FOIs.

Which begs the question of whose FOIs they’re actually dealing with.

Indeed.

Sounds as if a lot of the orgs that were FOId went back to Stonewall for help with their response, which is interesting in itself. Why would they feel the need to do that?

Interesting. My money would be on a connection to the legalfeminist call to FOI public sector organisations on the Stonewall list re: their engagement with Stonewall, and Stonewall taking the list down to make this harder (feels a bit like closing the door after the horse has bolted, but...), rather than a connection with the Essex report.

I’m interested to see what comes out of that mass FOI process, and also interested to see how Stonewall and their partners move forward.

It is worth noting that the examples of harassment in the University’s Supporting Trans and Non Binary Staff policy might lend credence to the idea that these newspaper letters could amount to or lead to unlawful harassment. This policy is founded on an erroneous understanding of the law (see §§225–226 above). The policy is reviewed annually by Stonewall, and its incorrect summary of the law does not appear to have been picked up by them. In my view the policy states the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is. To that extent the policy is misleading.

Gosh, Stonewall didn’t pick up where trans policy incorrectly stated the law. That is surprising!

This bit caught my eye as well, where Prof Phoenix’s “affiliation” with WPUK is being considered
I am aware that many people consider WPUK to be a “hate group”. For example, very senior Labour politicians have signed a pledge card to this effect written by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights, which indicates that those who share WPUK’s position on trans rights and gender identity should be expelled from the Party. On the other hand, gender critical feminists associated with WPUK have been described by the High Court as “respected academics who hold gender-critical views and do so for profound socio-philosophical reasons”, and by the Joint Committee for Human Rights as “leading feminists and LGBT activists with a lengthy pedigree in campaigning for LGBT rights” engaging in “critical debate about issues around feminism and trans politics” which form part of “open debates that democracy needs”

Labour Campaign for Trans Rights is a handful of TRAs who took it upon themselves to seize upon the 2020 leadership campaign as an opportunity to promote their misogynistic, homophobic views within the party, they are not an official party group. The fact that this is now being considered as relevant in a completely different situation just shows how badly the MPs who signed that pledge - Lisa Nandy, Angela Rayner, Rebecca Long-Bailey - have let women down, and let LGB people down, by supporting TRA extremism.

Nancy Kelley’s been tweeting about how many FOIs Stonewall have to deal with, except that as a non-public organisation they’re not subject to FOIs.

Which begs the question of whose FOIs they’re actually dealing with.

Just reading through the report over breakfast.

A lot of the detail of what happened at UoE is redacted, understandably, but the parts laying out the current state of play are clear and very readable.

This bit made me smile
The police are empowered by law to record a “non-crime hate incident” which is “perceived to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”, even where this entails an interference with the freedom of speech of the person against whom the incident is recorded. By definition these records do not relate to breaches of criminal law. It would therefore be surprising if the University were to be entitled to restrict a person’s freedom of speech on the basis that they are likely to commit a non-crime hate incident.
I love how often things are found to be “surprising” in reports and judgements.

Thanks to the times for pouring sunlight over this.

From Cleanpress'a link:

and other transphobes still are even currently attempting to ‘sue Stonewall’.’._ This after they told an organisation that if they did not do something about transphobia at their work place then they would be removed from the 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? Not sure why that was a surprise to anyone.^

I wouldn't ask TRA blogger NotCursedE to work on your defending arguments against Allison Bailey, Stonewall. I'm not sure the finer points of the case have quite been grasped.

Wall*

God how I WISH I could be a fly on the real in the Stonewall meetings.

They must know their time is nearly up.

I've just found the Stonewall action plan for my university. Apparently they've spotted a problem with our maternity policy: too much gendered language

Wow. And universities are paying for this shit.

I've just found the Stonewall action plan for my university. Apparently they've spotted a problem with our maternity policy: too much gendered language

The list of companies signed up is huge. MI5 is on there!

Have you all seen this? It's absolutely brilliant

https://legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/?fbclid=IwAR0oxKS724-R8BcfmHpO8ABGkbbrz5rozszyPtDwSw84TYs72BN877OFk

Hiding the members list would be a good way of hiding numbers of orgs leaving after recent events.

and they've deleted it.
The nobody cares comment? Somebody cared about that, it seems 😂

medium.com/@notCursedE/transphobias-secret-attack-on-stonewall-uk-cb57e2704648

• and they've deleted it.

I will be following up with my QC and uni clients and advising them to make sure their policy working groups are formulated in the way recommended in the report, so including women, and that the other recommendations are formally assessed for impact.

I strongly recommend any one working in a uni write to the VC and HRD even if you have to do it anonymously.

UCU asked me to complete a survey about academic freedom at universities today - with a preamble that seemed to say 'the government have got a bee in their bonnet about this, but it's not really a problem for us, is it?'

This report provided some very useful evidence.

(Though I am still worried they'll hunt me down and ban me from the union for wrongthink.)