House of Lords leaves Stonewall

The thing about Stonewall is that the more you read about their schemes, in their own words too, the more the homophobia and misogyny shines through. It's shocking when an institution like the House of Lords sees this, and a once great gay rights charity does not. But this is the world we live in.

Are they out of both schemes or just the Diversity Champions?

Great news! Have Stonewall ever been investigated by the Charity Commission? They've gone so beyond their remit for so long now.

This isn’t just about Stonewall, it’s about lobbying. I think lobbying may be the next big issue/scandal to hit politics

David Cameron said the same in 2010, ironic given his recent activity though

I agree though, and the idea that the house of Lords pays stonewall to lobby it is ludicrous. No part of government should be in the stonewall lobbying scheme.

No part of the legislature should be part of a scheme run by any lobby group.

This isn’t just about Stonewall, it’s about lobbying. I think lobbying may be the next big issue/scandal to hit politics.

A reminder of the 7 Nolan Principles, with which membership of any scheme conflicts:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2

Most obviously, being in a SW-like scheme conflicts with integrity:

"Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work."

And of course with objectivity:

"Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias."

Public office holders must also be selfless:

"Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest."

The SW scheme is in conflict with all of these things. It would be the same if the Lords decided to take part in a GC scheme or a CRT scheme, or a scheme run by a religious organisation/constellation of religious organisations.

The question is - how and why were they ever in the scheme? The Committee on Standards in Public Life should investigate to stop this ever happening again.

Excellent news.

I mean really shouldn't stonewall have some faith in their training ?

If you need to keep renewing each year and go through the whole rigmarole of repeating the forms it don't say much about its effectiveness.

Is Disgusted suggesting only people under a certain age can be lesbian, gay or bisexual? 🤣

I didn’t think it was something you out grew.

No doubt Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green will be refusing her seat forthwith!

HAPPY SUNDAY! 🎉🎉🎉

Ace!

This has made my day

There have been a flurry of good news stories on this from the House of Lords.

Excellent news.

Ironically Stonewall can't seem to see that use of 'birthing parent' is actually more exclusive than inclusive. There are far more women who have become parents by adoption or surrogacy (i know different people here feel differently about surrogacy but that's another debate) than there are TiMs or 'non binary people' offended by the term mother. To not use mother actually excludes these women in favour of including men or people who think their personality is a gender.

Hadn't thought of the extra hurt this erasure of " mother" might cause some women. Thank you. This is a very good point.

Another clear indication that TRAs are men's rights activists.

The GRA specifically preserves male primogeniture so a woman who identifies as trans cannot inherit a peerage in place of her younger brother. Stonewall are apparently perfectly happy with this.

Just not happy with women being allowed to have same sex medical examiner's after rape or women prisoners being able to shower without male prisoners showering with them.

The GRA specifically preserves male primogeniture so a woman who identifies as trans cannot inherit a peerage in place of her younger brother. Stonewall are apparently perfectly happy with this.

Of course they are because the male who identifies as trans still gets to inherit the peerage. Gotta love the patriarchy - heads they win, tails you lose.

Super news.

Ironically Stonewall can't seem to see that use of 'birthing parent' is actually more exclusive than inclusive. There are far more women who have become parents by adoption or surrogacy (i know different people here feel differently about surrogacy but that's another debate) than there are TiMs or 'non binary people' offended by the term mother. To not use mother actually excludes these women in favour of including men or people who think their personality is a gender.

The GRA specifically preserves male primogeniture so a woman who identifies as trans cannot inherit a peerage in place of her younger brother. Stonewall are apparently perfectly happy with this.

How do you explain the fact that they were in the scheme in the first place then?

Good question.

From that Times article (thanks, Milady!) -

"Stonewall said: “Our Diversity Champions programme provides guidance and support on making HR policies inclusive for LGBTQ+ employees. It has no bearing on the drafting of legislation, which is the responsibility of the relevant government department. To suggest otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the legislative process.” "

Are they seriously telling the House of Lords - 'misunderstands' the legislative process?!? Really?

Cut&pasted from www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/role/ -

The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It works with the House of Commons to:

- make laws
- check and challenge the actions of the government, and
- provide a forum of independent expertise

The House of Lords Chamber spends about 60% of its time on legislation; the other 40% is spent on scrutiny – questioning Government and debating issues and policy. Committee work takes place outside the Chamber.

"Fundamentally misunderstand the legislative process", my arse!

Amazing news!

How do you explain the fact that they were in the scheme in the first place then?

Exactly what I was going to ask!