The Financial Juggernaut that is Stonewall

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

Extracts from the 2017 Financial Accounts of Stonewall:

2017 Total income £7.2m

Donations 1.7m
Grants 0.9m (total income from govt 0.65.million)
Sponsorship 0.4m
Events 0.8m
Fees 2.2m
Programs 0.5m

2017 Total expenditure £6.1m

fundraising 1m
campaigns/policy/research 2.5m
employment advice 1.6
empowerment programs 1m

2.3m Support costs ( £0.5m gen mgt costs, 4 people paid > £60k)
Key mgt personnel: CEO,MD,exec dir x2 - total employee benefits of those 4: £300k

Trustees: Jonathan Andrews, Richard Beaven, Simon Blake, Katie Cornhill, Catherine Dixon, Jan Gooding (Chair), Sheldon Mills, Phyll Opoku-Gyimah, Rosalyn Parker, Lisa Pinney (Treasurer), Oliver Rowe, Tim Toulon, Mohsin Zaidi

CEO Ruth Hunt
Secretary Maxine Draper

4 core strategic priorities:

•	Empowering individuals
•	Transforming institutions
•	Changing hearts and minds
•	Changing laws

Here’s some information about Jan Gooding, Stonewall Chair, who seems to have overseen the financialisation of Stonewall from charity into deep pocketed lobby group:

Jan Gooding Group Brand Director Aviva

Jan is one of the most senior directors in the Aviva Group and is responsible for the leadership, oversight and governance of brand and marketing strategy worldwide. She is the very visible sponsor of the LGBT employee network Aviva Pride, and was elected Chair of Trustees of Stonewall in May 2014. This year she guided the board of trustees through a change in the remit of Stonewall to include ‘T’ in the focus of their activities, and in March she gave the annual lecture to the Employment Lawyers Association, addressing over 500 lawyers, QC’s and judges across the country on the areas of concern to Stonewall as the legal changes took hold.

From her public Linkedin Profile:

Jan Gooding is a marketing leader with a career which has included senior executive roles working with blue chip companies like BT, British Gas, Diageo, Unilever and, most latterly, as the Group Brand director at Aviva. She was responsible for unifying the c£400K global marketing spend under the brand idea 'Good Thinking'. In her final role at Aviva, as their first Global Inclusion Director, she led the introduction of the ground-breaking policy of equal parental leave.
-She is currently the Chair of LGBT equality charity Stonewall, which reaches and supports LGBT activists in over 70 countries worldwide. When she took over the helm, Stonewall was focussed on equality based on people’s sexual orientation, and did not actively campaign on gender identity issues-. Under her leadership Stonewall extended it remit to campaign for trans equality in 2015.
She was appointed President of MRS (Market Research Society) April 2017. And is a Fellow of the Marketing Society and member of WACL (Women in Advertising and Communication London).
Jan is known to be one of the UK’s most outspoken marketing leaders on the subjects ranging from building global brands to inclusive leadership.

Her remarks from 2018 Stonewall Review:

Now is such a critical time for Stonewall, as we continue to fight for all aspects of LGBT inclusion. Reflecting on the year now coming to an end, 2018 has been a difficult year, particularly for trans people. They have faced a barrage of negative coverage, and we at Stonewall have made no bones about using our voice and our platform to directly confront it. But the struggle for lesbian, gay and bi equality hasn’t let up either.
We stand up forpeople.
We stand up for the respect and acceptance of L, plus G, plus B, plus T, plus, plus, plus: we stand up for people. For just as we jointly suffer from hate, discrimination and ignorance from certain quarters of society, we are united by, and stand together, to insist on equality for everyone.
One thing is true. We do draw a line with regard to questioning whether trans people deserve the same level of equality as any other group. This aspect of the current media frenzy is not up for debate.
We also believe that giving greater equality and respect to trans people will not negatively impact the rights of women or any other group.
We know that acceptance and respect for all LGBT+ people is not achieved through false ‘debates’ on social media.
We know that the acceptance and respect we seek for all LGBT+ people is not achieved through false ‘debates’ on social media. It is done by hard work on the ground, day after day, in our schools, communities and workplaces.
Here are a few examples of what our brilliant staff and volunteers have been up to:
• For the first time we attended 30 Prides,reaching some communities for the first time.
• Our hardworking Information Service dealt with over 5,550 calls and emails.
• We now have over 1,500 Stonewall School Champions and trained 2,300 teachers, all of whom are now working to make schools safe and inclusive spaces for LGBT pupils. Importantly, 458 of these are schools with faith values.
• We launched a new international programme to work with 29 organisations in 25 countries to specifically address human rights violations faced by lesbians, bi women and trans people over the next two years.
• We successfully lobbied the Government to make Relationships and Sex Education, and Health Education, compulsory in all of England’s schools and LGBT inclusive.
• As part of our international ‘Access to Justice’ programme, we trained 118 police, prosecutors and policy-makers in Europe on hate crime and LGBT equality and diversity.
• No less than 25 leading global organisations, employing 1.3 million people across the world, demonstrated their commitment to improving workplace equality by entering our Global Workplace Equality Index.
• We successfully lobbied the Government to reduce the period that gay and bi men need to have had no sexual activity before donating blood from 12 months to 3 months.
• Following our extensive lobbying, the UK Government launched a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act (2004) which received record coverage and a huge response from our supporters.

Rather ironic remarks considering the unreliability of Stonewall’s stats:

-I have to say that throughout my career getting my hands on trustworthy data and insight has been crucial. It helps to explain where you are. How you may have got there. And what viable options there may be to move forward-.

And from our friends at Pink News, some insights into the PR & marketing expertise behind Stonewall:

Ogilvy Pride UK is the LGBT specialist PR & marketing consultancy of Ogilvy & Mather Group UK. As well as being recognised as Stonewall Champions, Ogilvy’s global efforts have been recognised by the Human Rights Campaign Organisation, who have rated the company as one of the best places to work as an LGBT individual.

Ogilvy Pride targets pink pound. The division will help clients tap into the $3trillion global LGBT market.By 2020 it is estimated that in London alone the traditional mainstream majority will be outnumbered by minority groups. For a global brand campaign to be truly strategic in its communications, consideration of minority consumer audiences such as LGBT is now key.’

Ogilvy Pride is also the first global agency to partner with UK-based LGBT advocacy organization, Stonewall. A spokesperson for Stonewall told Gay Star Business: ‘It’s great to see Ogilvy launch a specialism that specifically looks out for the needs of the LGBT community.’
In the US, Ogilvy & Mather Group scored a top ranking of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent Corporate Equality Index.
Below, in a recent video produced by Ogilvy Pride, Jonathan Mildenhall, the Chief Marketing Officer of Airbnb, explains why initiatives such as Ogilvy Pride are important in the marketing industry; an industry he describes as ‘inherently conservative’.

Ogilvy Pride, the LGBT and inclusive marketing specialists from across the Ogilvy Group, have announced a significant expansion of the agency’s leadership team with the appointment of a new head of the agency for the team and two new deputies

Powergoer, there was a legal services ombudsman case reported today where a solicitors firm had to pay compensation to a trans woman client for misgendering her even thought they had written asking how she wanted to be addressed and she had not replied. Could be the beginning of a conversation as to how unreasonable the trans gender demands are.

Ours official. My firm is now a diversity champion recognised by stonewall. Ffs. My email complaint was more or less ignored.

So the 2018 Stonewall accounts are available. They are not yet on the Charity Commission Website, but they are on Stonewall's site. They are dated 5th Feb 2019 (a couple of weeks before Ruth Hunt left).

www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stonewall_2017-18_signed_accounts_.pdf

The Headline Figure is that 2017-2018 income was up to £8.7 million from £7.2million the previous year.

So was their expediture. Up to £8.8 million from £7.5million the previous year. So they reduced their net deficient from 2017 but it was still £93,000 more than they brought in.

When I looked at 2017 accounts, I made the following 6 observations:
1) Image is a big deal. There was a notable shift in 2017 in the donated services. This is connected with media and pr. In other words companies wanted to be associated with Stonewall. It plays into this liberal identity stuff.
2) individual donations aren't really a huge part of their income. Corporate image is important in both the fees they are generating and the donations in services they receive.
3) Government grants as almost as important as donations
4) Donations were down between 2016 and 2017 and there was an increased focus on corporate income which went up.
5) There is considerable rising spending on staffing
6) In 2017 Stonewall appears to have effectively run at a loss rather than a surplus. I stress this might have been been deliberate for some reason, and not a concern as there was plenty of money in the bank.

So where has this increase in income come from and what have they spent it on.

Let's start with 2016 figures
Individual donations - £1,359,199
Corporate donations - £218,761
Legacies - £155,214
Donated services - £6,368
Total £1,739,542

Grants £900,988
(Of which are government grants) £568,319

Total: £2,640,530

Compare with 2017
Individual donations - £943,460
Corporate donations - £104,698
Legacies - £96,611
Donated services - £187,371
Total £1,332,140

Grants £871,804
(Of which are government grants) £655,573

Total £2,203,944

And 2018
Individual donations - £977,026
Corporate donations - £365,757
Legacies - £181,699
Donated services - £167,537
Total £1,692,019

The increase has been significant in Corporate Donations.

Grants £1,927,407
(Of which are government grants) £610,591

And in Corporate Grants - notably £1,075,000 from The Monument Trust. (From the Sainsburys Family Charity Trusts - There are a number of important members of the Sainsburys Family. They are both Conservative and Labour supporters. I note that one of them, Lord Sainsbury was the UK's biggest political donor in 2016 donating to both Labour and the LDs in the run up to the EU ref. Then in 2017, he announced he would be ending his donations to politicial parties, and instead would focus on donating to charities: www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/uks-biggest-political-donor-lord-sainsbury-to-end-his-contributions. Another senior Sainbury, donated over £100million to LGBT causes before his death. He married his gay partner shortly before his death)

The rest of the income falls under 'fees' or from assets:

Donations and legacies £1,692,019 (2017 - £1,332,140)
Grants £1,927,407 (2017 - £871,806)
Fee Income £2,731,225 (2017 - £2,644,908)
Programme income £754,996 (2017 £589,633)
Sponsorship £504,903 (2017 - £609,873)
Events Income £616,745 (2017 - £740,428)
Investment £52,943 (2017 - 409,633)
Other income (advertising income and merchandise) £417,112 (2017 - £409,633)

So the big difference from 2017 to 2018 was their Corporate Income and that single big grant from The Monument Trust.

And what did the money go on?

Expenditure
Fundraising £1,573,743 (2017 - £1,273,841)
Charitable activities
Campaigns, policy and research £4,073,920 (2017 - £3,112,101)
Employment Advice £1,781,939 (2017 - £1,961,719)
Empowerment Programmes £1,361,550 (2017 - £1,143,441)

It looks a lot to me like that extra million expenditure went on Campaigns, policy and research. Isn't that pure political lobbying?
And in terms of money going back to the grassroots there was less spent on employment advice. Instead it went to 'empowerment programmes'.

And lets take a look at 'Support Costs'
General Management £931,613 (2017 - £451,955)
Finance, operations, human resources and information technology £1,762,843 (2017 - £1,867,526)

The cost of General Management has nearly doubled in one year?! So to bring in £1.5 million extra, general management costs have doubled? Thats a big increase.

And lets look at staff cost:
Salaries £4,580,389 (2017 - £3,795,112)
Social Security £467,626 (2017 - £380,572)
Pension £296,615 (2017 - £249,262)
Temporary Staff £144,442 (2017 - £36,813)
Total £5,489,072 (2017 - £4,461,759)

So staffing has increased by £892,906. In a year.

And 1/9 of their income from the year came from one source. The Monument Trust. And that extra million pounds seems to have been spent pretty much solely on political lobbying alone.

I return to what I said on the Ruth Hunt is Leaving Thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3514190-Ruth-Hunt-is-leaving-Stonewall?pg=12

In terms of what Stonewall actually 'do', they are a service. They aren't providing anything physical like food, clothes, water.

I have to ask a crucial question when reflecting on those figures, who are Stonewall serving? Is it the grassroots LGBT community still or is it their own nice little gravy train and the corporate cool?

Reflecting on the article that got me thinking, it's arguably an increasing real gray area surrounding Stonewall and it's purposes and services in 2019 because ironically if they are successful then they should be reducing their expenditure not increasing it!

And to that I must add the phrase:
Is Stonewall still charity for LGBT rights or is it purely a political group for a small interest group?

hmm

for comparison, according to the electoral commission , the lib dems had an income of £9.7 million in 2017

Really interesting Red, thank you!

Thank you for doing the Red.

I'm wondering how this fits around the law and lobbying.

Since politics is shifting to this 'culture war', you have a dynamic where promoting certain ideas and things is inherently political. Trans Rights are very much one of those polarising issues which is forcing voters to 'chose' between one side and the other side.

We have seen a lot of 'dark money' enter politics via the back door - eg Facebook advertising and voter profiling, so I do wonder whether this means that particular charities could almost be used as 'trojan horses' for undeclared political spending.

I don't know. I'm speculation but I certainly think it's an area which should have sunlight cast on it.

So the Monument Trust has recently closed down and made a bunch of legacy grants, looking at their website. In my experience legacy grants are often unrestricted or on very loose conditions (as there will be nobody to report to), so they are given to existing partners that the remaining Trustees feel speaks to the intentions of the founders. The Monument Trust probably thought of Stonewall because it was set up by a gay civil partnered couple, they also supported HIV and healthcare, culture and the arts, lots of other things. It's not surprising that Ruth Hunt would have taken the opportunity of a chunk of money on very soft conditions and legacy terms, to beef up the bit of Stonewall that improved her profile the most. The Monument Trust may have had little or nothing to do with the thematic focus she chose.

I'm wondering what "social security" even is.
That doesn't exist as a thing in the UK. It's a US term. What's it doing in a British charity's accounts?

Maybe they mean NI or PAYE in that context? If so, why not call it that?

Yes agree that's bizarre.

Great work Red.

The Charity Commission's guidance about political lobbying is quite clear and I would argue that Stonewall (and another high profile trans activist organisation- as it was referred to in the IPSO ruling) are sailing very close to the wind in this respect.

Précis of relevant regulations below (my bolding):

"In charity law, a ‘political purpose’ cannot be a charitable purpose. That means that an organisation cannot be a charity if it has a ‘political purpose’ (legal requirement).
However, a charity can carry out ‘political activity’ if it facilitates or supports the delivery of its charitable purposes.

In charity law, a ‘political purpose’ is not simply a purpose that is concerned with party politics.
When the Commission uses the term ‘political purpose’ it means what charity law considers to be a ‘political purpose’. That means any purpose, whether in this country or overseas, that is aimed at:
• securing or opposing any change in the law, whether in the UK or overseas
• securing or opposing a change in the policy or decisions of central government or local authorities or other public bodies, whether in the UK or overseas"

I'd argue that this is what Stonewall has become. It's no longer an advocacy organisation, it's a lobbying group.

The guidance also says this:

"The process for deciding whether an organisation has a political purpose is no different from the process generally used to decide whether any organisation does or does not have charitable purposes.
The answer lies in deciding:
• what an organisation’s purposes are
• the reason why the political activity is being carried out
It is not simply a case of assessing how much political activity the organisation undertakes."

That seems a bit bit woolly and arse covering to me.

It seems pretty clear to me that the vast amount of Stonewall's income goes on campaigns and lobbying. Is that political? I'd argue it is.

Sorry forgot the link to the relevant doc:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/637648/CC4.pdf

Orchid
So seeing as Stonewall clearly are a political organisation, the lobby the government to change laws and have a very clear political agenda, they must be breaking the charity commission's guidance.

Surely they should be held accountable?

So can Stonewall be reported and investigated by the charities commission and have their status as a charity removed?

Also a little refresher on lobbying rules in the HoC whilst I'm shifting through shit:publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmcode/1076/107606.htm

2. Taking payment in return for advocating a particular matter in the House is strictly forbidden. Members may not speak in the House, vote, or initiate parliamentary proceedings for payment in cash or kind. Nor may they make approaches to Ministers, other Members or public officials in return for such payment.

order-order.com/2018/05/29/dawn-butlers-14000-la-jolly-paid-for-by-blairite-guru/

Anthony Watson a Stonewall Ambassador paid for Dawn Butler to go on a £14,000 LGBT fact finding trip.

Thanks for sharing the figures; was wondering when they were due out.

I imagine reporting them would go nowhere (see regulatory capture) but it’s probably worth a try. Can individuals complain about charities?

Wish I'd known before taking out Aviva car insurance - won't be renewing with them next year.

Dp/Red - I think it could be worth a go. But you have to complain to the Charity first though (I think that's what put me off last time I thought about doing this)

What about a group complaint?

Nearly everyone here falls under Stonewall’s remit - there are a large contingent of lesbians, bi women, gender-free and gender nonconformists...

current thread,
OP Mbwashenzi wrote,
"Letter from FOVAS DAMNING for Stonewall
FOVAS (Female-Only Violence and Abuse Survivors) have just published a desperately upsetting account of the impact of sex self ID on women-only services. Worse: there is clear evidence that Stonewall have treated data provided to them by these services in a deeply unethical way.
Please read and share with everyone you can think of.

fovas.wordpress.com/response-to-stonewall-2/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3627936-Letter-from-FOVAS-DAMNING-for-Stonewall

current thread, OP GrabtharsHammarWhatASaving wrote:

"Stonewall protest, July 5th

www.standingforwomen.com/so/d4Mk9jND3?cid=136433ed-282e-43c5-a12e-864e0274e3b4#/main

I live no where near London, but it'd be great if they got a big turn out!"

(extract from linked information from Standing For Women)
"Why we're doing what we're doing......

We think Stonewall is taking tax payers money to promote a harmful ideology in schools, they charge nearly £200 per ticket for 600 places and have a corporate Sponsor.... this is big money indoctrination. We don't think teachers or pupils should have this thrust upon them. It's about time there general public were aware just exactly what they are allowing to happen to children without even raising questions or a public consultation. We want the general public to be fully informed about what is going on as once they are we think they will object. We want them to know their children are being told that they can change sex and that they have no rights to sex segregated spaces.

Please come and give your voice to this pushback, where we say no to indoctrinating our children, no to putting girls last, no to endorsing this harm.

8.30 am onwards 5th July 2019

County Hall, Belvedere Road, London SE1 7PB"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3621123-Stonewall-protest-July-5th

Women from Transgender Trend refused a place at Stonewall's public conference despite having purchased tickets.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3629628-Transgender-Trend-banned-from-Stonewall-conference-tomorrow

Stonewall are the biggest TRA lobby group claiming charity status in the UK but certainly not the only one. They all need reporting and investigating by the charity commission. The fact governments are funding these charities to lobby in order to push through laws with dubious or no consultation is so corrupt.

And now today we see the rewards available.

My BILs company gave a large donation.