An update to the WI Announcement thread. My DH just got a reply to his application to join them.

There was a name of a partner on that email (along with his direct dial number).

If you really don't believe what my DH is going through, then call him on that number and ask about the telephone conversation he had with my DH when he called at 2.45pm on Friday.

[EDIT]

Sorry, I've just changed the image to hidden and I will need to resend you the link. Please let me know if it is ok to send you a PM with the link.

"Was it a without prejudice conversation?"

Yes

"I'm interested in a 6 week defence extension. 28 days is the usual request"

They did ask for 28 days initially. But then during the conversation, they offered to provide further information around the disadvantages faced by TIM and how the WI can help overcome that.

DH said that if there were such strong evidence then that may sway his mind on what he does with the case. So they asked for an extra 21 days to get that together, DH agreed to an extra 14 days.

Stop bending over backwards to appease that poster. It's not worth it (and certainly doesn't matter if somebody is disbelieving).

I do imagine the solicitor DH spoke to was trying to catch him out. Was it a without prejudice conversation?

I'm interested in a 6 week defence extension. 28 days is the usual request (else you need a consent order).

There was a name of a partner on that email (along with his direct dial number).

If you really don't believe what my DH is going through, then call him on that number and ask about the telephone conversation he had with my DH when he called at 2.45pm on Friday.

[EDIT]

Sorry, I've just changed the image to hidden and I will need to resend you the link. Please let me know if it is ok to send you a PM with the link.

Without wishing to sound critical of anyone here, this is all beginning to get needlessly convoluted.

The position that the WI is in is actually relatively straightforward.

As a matter of law, specifically the Charities Acts, it defines its primary charitable purpose as being that that the education of WOMEN.

The governing documents of the WI, its regional federatations and its member associations, explicitly define a Women's Institute as an 'association of WOMEN'.

The model constitution that the WI supplies to its member associations restricts membership to "WOMEN who have reached the Age of Majority."

The only legal question that arises from the UKSC ruling in FWS v Scottish Ministers is whether the definition of 'sex' - and by extension 'women' - within the Equality Act, as clarified by the court, should automatically be read across into the WI's governing documents, which has to be the case if the WI has operated, and wishes to continue to operate lawfully under the Charities exception in s193 of the Equality Act 2010.

The immediate effect of this is that males cannot and never have been eligible for membership of the WI, regardless of how they identify, rendering any such memberships automatically null and void.

The positive action clause in s158 is completely irrelevant here - if the WI wishes to admit TiMs as members then it has to amend its governing documents accordingly.

There is no need here to get into the weeds of discrimination claims and the like, the WI's governing documents are clear in terms of the objects and membership criteria and any WI branch or federation operating outside of its governing document should be referred to the Charity Commission for investigation.

For the record, I worked for a Council for Voluntary Services for several years and specialised in charity formation and governance, so dealt with the Charity Commission and charity law on a regular basis.

From what I’ve read (and I could have missed some detail) the OP has said some things which have been interpreted on here as ‘weak arguments’ from the lawyers. Could that not just be OP’s lack of knowledge on the statements a top-tier lawyer would genuinely put forward? And for the case OP is making, it isn’t hard to copy what others on here have said. None of the exchanges read as real to me at all.

I have also watched enough episodes of catfish to know that yes, bored people absolutely do engage in months-long cons. Scenarios like this on anonymous forums are more likely fake than real, and that’s just basic internet experience and literacy.

Can I also just say, the idea that a partner at a top-tier law firm would disclose to a random member of the public that other charities are under pressure or being challenged legally is just not credible. That would be wildly unprofessional and potentially a breach of confidentiality. No serious solicitor would speak that loosely, especially to someone they’re not formally representing.

I’m not accusing anyone of trolling. I’ve just said I find the story implausible based on the context and what we know. That’s different from calling them a troll, which I know breaks the rules. I’m just engaging with what’s been posted, like everyone else.

If you think it's false, report the thread to MNHQ. What you're doing is troll hunting which is banned.

You haven't explained why you think it's more likely that the OP has spent all this time making stuff up, including creating a made-up letter from lawyers especially to send to you, than that this is genuine. Why would anyone do that? What's in it for them?

I’m not at all. I never asked for any information from the OP, and I don’t want any more direct messages! It freaked me out a bit to be honest. I know why they did it because I was saying the story sounds implausible, but I didn’t ask for it.

I won’t be doing anything with the photo either but OP you can delete the photo of the site just to be sure.

You all seem to think I have bad intentions, I’m just pointing out that I think a story being told on here is false.

@Another2Cats This poster is clearly trying to goad you into sending them confidential information (which will probably turn up on Reddit or somewhere). It would be wise not to send them anything that you are not prepared to post on here, because once they have it you have no control over what happens to it. You can't stop a third party from posting something on the internet once you've sent it to them.

I’m expressing doubts about the plausibility of a story. That’s all.

I’m expressing doubts about the plausibility of a story. That’s all.

I’m expressing doubts about the plausibility of a story. That’s all.

I thought everyone on this thread was familiar with the longstanding MN 'no troll-hunting' rule ?

You report it if you don't think it's genuine but you don't derail a thread.

I have seen that and have responded. For context, it’s a screenshot of an email which could have very easily have been photoshopped. It doesn’t show evidence for anything other than some text about a legal extension.

I understand you aren’t able to put emails from solicitors onto the internet, but I’m sorry I just don’t believe what you’re saying. The story doesn’t sound plausible to me.