Organisations Leaving Stonewall: The List

Reply to my email from Marie Curie - very disappointing in light of all this that they not only remain with Stonewall but seem proud of it:

*Thank you for your support for Marie Curie. We are grateful for your donations and the difference it has made to the people we care for.

As a provider of care to people at the end of their lives, and those affected by the death of a loved one, we take many steps to ensure our care and support is open to everyone who needs it, and that we understand what is meaningful to people as they approach the end, so we can tailor our care to their needs.

In terms of Marie Curie’s relationship with Stonewall, we are a member of their Diversity Champions programme. By doing so, we have access to great training materials and expert knowledge to ensure that Marie Curie is an inclusive employer for LGBT staff, and is welcoming of LGBT people at the end of their life.

Our membership of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions programme is just one of these steps, which helps ensure that all LGBTQ+ beneficiaries feel accepted and supported. At this time we have no plans to end our membership of the scheme.

If you have decided to withdraw your donations then we respect your decision and thank you again for your all you have done in the past to support those affected by dying, death and bereavement.*.

I went on Action For Children website to see if they are still with Stonewall - plan to email them to ask - but found their gender identity guide to be very disturbing

media.actionforchildren.org.uk/documents/Action_for_Children_Gender_Identity_Guide_1.pdf

Stonewall are all through it and for Other Resources it lists Mermaids and the ITV sham Butterfly

With SW having some 800 members of their schemes, do we need to be realistic. Are they leaving in droves and that explains why SW have hidden their list, or was their list hiding to protect members?

Or was their list hiding to hide the fact that many on the list has left months / years earlier, but they kept the names on to keep the list bigger?

With SW having some 800 members of their schemes, do we need to be realistic. Are they leaving in droves and that explains why SW have hidden their list, or was their list hiding to protect members?

I started a thread asking whether anyone had heard anything about Whitehall? They said they would make a statement at the end of last week but haven't done that.

Are we being led down the garden path. Everyone giving the impression that GC is making a difference now, when clearly, so many organisations are carrying on as though nothing is going to make any difference. Just because an organisation removes something from their website doesn't mean a cancellation, it means more secrecy. Liz Truss could have clarified single sex spaces but has left the obfuscation in, hoping the law will sort it out. Given that cases on single sex space are in very short supply, where does that leave us - Limbo for the next 50 years is my guess.

“KeepingTheWormsQuiet
Barclays Bank is still proud of being a Stonewall Top 100 Employer

www.barclays.co.uk/diversity/
Trainedbycats Those of us old enough to remember Apartheid are not surprised by this“

Odd reversal, really. In those days, our Students Union banned Barclays from the SU shop: they had a notice up, saying they would not accept Barclays cheques.
I expect Barclays remembers how unpopular they were back then.

Couldnt see if they were on the list but thought i'd share the reply to the email i sent to Cancer Research last week:

Thank you for your email.
Whilst CRUK have been members of the Stonewall Diversity Champions in the past, we are not currently members. Our last membership ran out in March 2020, and the decision not to renew membership was taken at a time when the charity was responding to the financial pressures of the pandemic and needed to limit spending.
As a charity, we have recently published our first organisational-wide EDI Strategy with a vision to create a charity where everyone feels like they belong, benefits from and participates in, the work we do. This includes our trans and non-binary colleagues, volunteers and supporters.
I hope this has provided you with the relevant information.
We do not have any links to Gendered Intelligence or Mermaids.

Last night the Duke of Edinburgh Award's Twitter account tweeted that children should get 'help and advice' from groups including Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence and the Proud Trust. There was a lot of criticism and concern about safeguarding in the comments beneath, and they have now deleted the original tweet, so maybe they're having a rethink.

mobile.twitter.com/levipay/status/1403313769376276484

Cooperative bank gone?

[quote KeepingTheWormsQuiet]Barclays Bank is still proud of being a Stonewall Top 100 Employer

www.barclays.co.uk/diversity/[/quote]
Those of us old enough to remember Apartheid are not surprised by this

Barclays Bank is still proud of being a Stonewall Top 100 Employer

www.barclays.co.uk/diversity/

I have seen FOIs where orgs were asked about an application to the scheme and the org says they have never applied to the scheme, which is technically true because you just pay Stonewall the money, there is no application process.

Exactly. Pg 9 or thereabouts where I go through FOIs individually and then list the ones who may have left - I comment several times about the wording. And it's plain that some of the responders say that they did not apply based on the fact that they're in the final year of a 3 year membership so this is technically true but not in the spirit (so to speak). And then they're less than transparent about communication and other items.

If anyone can doublecheck the pg 9 list (I gave links) then it might be helpful to verify it before passing on to Sex Matters.

If organisations are being economical with the truth, then it says an awful lot about their relationship with SW and just adds to calls for a public enquiry

Are they being 'economical with the truth'?

I suspect this^ I have seen FOIs where orgs were asked about an application to the scheme and the org says they have never applied to the scheme, which is technically true because you just pay Stonewall the money, there is no application process.

I don't understand this - some organisations are saying in their FOI answers that they are not members or not reapplying but then it turns out they are. Are they lying? Are they being 'economical with the truth'? Maybe more FOIs to see if stonewall influenced their FOI responses in the first place?

@SpindleWhorl that’s taken from the response on what do they know that I screenshot.
I agree it’s a bit disingenuous but I would assume it’s at least 2 years. I suppose a follow up FOI could be put in to ask the specifics but at least we know they aren’t part of the scheme which has to be a good thing.

Not that's exactly specific, is it? 'Quite a few years'.

Gwent police confirm that they haven’t been in the scheme for quite a few years.

twitter.com/SomeOther_Guy/status/1402333585328246787/photo/3

There doesn't appear to be a mechanism to click on the hyper links? So one can't check their veracity.

As an addendum - here is the tweeter's annotated version of the Sex Matters' letter (3 images):

twitter.com/SomeOther_Guy/status/1402333585328246787

Also explains colour coding: Red is the tweeter's; black is the original SM letter and blue indicates hyperlinks.

Interesting claim from a Twitter account that this email criticising Sex Matters' letter and FOIA responses has garnered "lovely responses" from some Uni Vice Chancellors they've emailed (100+):

twitter.com/SomeOther_Guy/status/1402335925955399687

I'd genuinely like to see those responses to that email - other matters aside, it would be useful to see:
on what grounds the Uni Vice Chancellors agree with the characterisation and assertions in that email;
if there's a marked difference to the tone adopted in responses to those who contact institutions asking them to consider the letter.

I think there are only two… "Case after case", while technically applicable to two cases, is arguably a tad misleading.

Thank you. I misconstrued "case after case" as relating to the FOIAs.

I have been away from MN for awhile but would like to add to the list.

According to the Telegraph, University College London and the University of Winchester both revealed in FOI requests that they had chosen not to continue the Diversity Champions programme last year.

The same article says, "Oxford professor Michael Biggs wrote to his vice-chancellor, Louise Richardson, warning her that the university's membership could put it in breach of laws governing equality and freedom of speech."

His letter doesn't mince words. He said the university "should not submit to an unelected organisation which campaigns for a particular political agenda, which provides misleading information of the law" and that whilst "universities have escaped judicial challenge until now", an independent report for the University of Essex, which found Stonewall had misrepresented the law, should provide a warning.

"Citing the Education Act, which protects free speech, and the Equality Act, Prof Biggs said: "Submission to Stonewall is not compatible with the university's obligation to uphold the law"."