Come on suggestions, I think you should clarify your accusations here. Are you saying that this which you have quoted:
"At that trial, representatives of several groups were asked to give rough percentages of the sort of demographic groupings. It wasn’t Allison Bailey who said anything about how many lesbians were in our organisation, so that was one error. It was our managing director, Kate Barker, who said that of our- The only data we had at that time, which is why we followed up with a survey, was a very rough post-conference survey, asking people whether they enjoyed the conference, feedback for next year, what we can do better and how do you- Are you a lesbian, gay, etc., etc? I think it was a ridiculous figure which came out at 7%. Mr Nicolson inflated it 20%. Again, that was a factual error. So two factual errors there but, at that time, the only evidence we had was that in response to the clunky post-conference survey, which had a very unprofessional approach to asking the question, we came up with that figure of 7%, which none of us can explain. It seems to have just been an error which is why we wanted to do a survey soon after that because we know, we know who our supporters are and what their commitment is to us, and why the vast majority of them are so keen to support a same sex attracted charity. "
Is talking about a difference survey than:
One particularly sticky myth is that only 7% of LGB Alliance supporters are lesbians. Here’s how that started:
We were delighted to be able to support Allison Bailey at her tribunal in the form of a witness statement to help prove that gender critical people are likely to be women and lesbians. As part of that we shared some numbers from our newsletter subscriber list.
We used Mailchimp to send our newsletter and when we set up our account in 2019 we added some subscriber questions which, as it turned out, provided us with ambiguous data.
We asked people whether they were lesbian, whether they were lesbian/gay or if they preferred not to say. The flaws being that we couldn’t tell whether those who ticked lesbian/gay were men or women and that none of the fields were compulsory – so many people skipped them altogether.
The result was that we had 4,502 newsletter subscribers and 316 ticked the box describing themselves as lesbian. That’s 7% of the total. A further 949 ticked the box lesbian/gay and 1,427 were unspecified or preferred not to say. Based on that data that means that between 316 (7%) and 2,376 (53%) of our subscribers were lesbian.
The 7% figure was used in court because it’s important that evidence is based on provable fact and it is a fact that, at a minimum, 7% of our subscribers were lesbians. However, common sense told us that that number was really much higher.
In August 2022 we commissioned a survey of our subscribers to help us plan to deliver services and support to LGB people. One of the questions we asked was about sexual orientation. That data showed that 34% are lesbian, 33% are gay men, 12% are bisexual, 20% are heterosexual and 1% preferred not to say. We are satisfied that this data is robust."
What other information do you have that shows that there was two surveys?