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

Which part doesn't sound plausible?

Troll hunting is against MN's talk guidelines. Have you reported the OP?

The 'wildly unprofessional behaviour isn't credible' line of argument puts me in mind of Lister's response to Hogey the Rogey claiming that everything is "the likes of which you've never seen".

"I'm just saying ...you'd be surprised the likes of which we have seen. Don't be so quick to say everything's the likes of which we haven't seen - we've seen things the likes of which you probably haven't seen yourself!"

‘Let’s ignore the person who doesn’t agree with all our talking points’.

Okay, enjoy your echo chamber all!

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.

If I were you, I wouldn't engage any further with that poster who appears to be a TRA.

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

Given the amount of 'wildly unprofessional' behaviour we've seen from certain barristers on here, and elsewhere on social media, I don't see that as undermining credibility at all.

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. If not, it's still an excellent opportunity to thrash out the possible arguments, counterarguments, and relevant points of law.

Pollard often comments on Sarah Jane Baker's social media posts, fwiw.

I wanted to check the point made upthread about the WI and Nettie Pollard.

They didn't platform Pollard, per se.

She appeared on a panel on an event organised by the AHRC (I think Arts & Humanities Research Council) on grassroots organising.

So did the WI.

Unless I've missed another link.

web.archive.org/web/20240104001536/www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/womens-grassroots-activism-ahrc-research-network-online-workshop-tickets-781337630887

I’m sure if this all turns out to be nonsense you can come back & say I told you so @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors

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.

And as long as we do take it at face value - the OP's husband sounds pretty darn passionate about those hobbies, too!

It's a possibility, but I think Occam's Razor applies here. Is it more likely that

1. The OP is engaging in months-long con requiring a fair degree of legal knowledge (I've no doubt more knowledgeable posters than I would have called them out if they got something concretely wrong) and remarkable commitment

or

2. This is real, and they're, in part, motivated not by [whatever you think would motivate someone to do that] but a passion for women's rights.

If the WI is reading, that may be a good thing. I sincerely hope they're noting the strength of feeling on this topic, and the largely calm, rational, fair-minded arguments behind it.

The former. The WI is (from a teenage perspective) an Old People Thing, and therefore the antithesis of cool.

Many people have already and received back the same Weasley words from them - we are awaiting the outcome of the EHRC consultation.

Thanks.

Can anyone report any WI to the CC, or does it need to be a member/erstwhile member of said branch?

Because teenagers will always rebel against staid institutions? Or because teenagers are over the whole TWAW thing?

This will not die until we get it out of the schools.

The WI going all-in on TWAW seems very likely to turn teenagers off the idea.

This will not die until we get it out of the schools.

The WI going all-in on TWAW seems very likely to turn teenagers off the idea.

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.

I suspect, more awkwardly, you'd find yourself dealing with activist women joining, who have decided that their feminism is about aggressively centering men and omni causes, and who suffer from the same difficulties with tolerating diversity of thought and resources.

But we've been here before. There have always been women sent to put other women back in their boxes to block their education, freedom, independence. I suspect standing up to this is what will offer future generations of women the same new opportunities we were offered by previous generations.