Ruth Hunt is leaving Stonewall

[Whatisthisfuckery]

Just seen this on Twitter.

twitter.com/ruth_hunt/status/1098604129394585601?s=21

I’d like to think her successor will be less homophobic. We shall see, although I’m not holding out much hope.

'as someone with a masters degree in queer history i feel reasonably qualified to suggest that history will...'

Someone REALLY overestimating the value of his degree there!

history will be much kinder to the lesbian chair of britain's largest LGBT charity than graham linehan, one of the most odious men on this hell site

One of these people will be getting royalties which will support themselves and their family long after death.
The other won't...

'as someone with a masters degree in queer history i feel reasonably qualified to suggest that history will...'

That is a logical fallacy as it is an appeal to authority.

Its more likely a reaction rather than recall as the site of bullying is unlikely to be with women, especially GNC and lesbians.

Last summer for whatever reason, actually a leaking pipe, I had issues with a gay neighbour I had got on with perfectly well for the last 20 or so years, and indeed I had built up quite a bank of favours owed. Not my fault at all, and I managed to get plumbers round within the hour, and the whole thing sorted quickly including repairing the damage to his property. My surprise was the aggressive, and bullying, reaction. No "niceness" at all. Instead really nasty emails involving unreasonable claims and threats of legal action.

I came to the conclusion that as well as male socialisation as a child, his adult social life appeared to be almost entirely male. Indeed in over two decades, and apart from his mother, I cannot recall spotting a single female visitor. In contrast to other gay men I know who have extensive networks of female friends. My assumption is that he was simply unaware that this sort of behaviour was unreasonable, and indeed, after his lawyer presumably told him he had not case, is now back to his normal veneer of friendly civility. I am polite back, but will not forget.

And its not just (some) gay men, who may show the signs of narrow socialisation as adults. I can think of a litigation lawyer in a male field whose behaviour out of work, and particularly to women including his wife, is bullying, patronising and selfish. Possibly acceptable if you are representing a high paying client against another equally aggressive client, but not elsewhere. Or perhaps some of Corbyn's inner circle. And perhaps for some, transwomen will make easier company because they share the same socialisation, so the perfect women substitutes.

Needmoresleep It used to be blamed on single sex schools, especially boarding.

Stonewall have continued to align and offer what seems uniquivocable support for Mermaids charity.

19/2/2019 Guardian 'National Lottery to give grant to transgender children's group
Lottery’s Community Fund will donate £500,000 over five years to the charity Mermaids'

(concludes)
Susie Green, the CEO of Mermaids, said: “The review process was very transparent and open, the community fund talked us through the steps that would be taken and gave full disclosure of the issues that were raised, and the progress of the investigations into the allegations made. We were given full opportunity to respond and discuss, and expected timelines for the review process itself.

“Mermaids is now looking forward to delivering the project in partnership with the National Lottery Community Fund, and are delighted that the outcome is so positive for us and the children, young people and families we support.”

A Stonewall spokesperson said: ‘This is fantastic news for Mermaids and this funding will make a huge difference in the lives of trans young people and their families in the UK.”
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/19/national-lottery-to-give-grant-to-transgender-childrens-group

So earlier today this article caught my interest and got me thinking about a few things. www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-6737765/How-charities-spend-226m-fat-cat-pay-spin-doctors-running-costs.html
All in a good cause? How top charities spend £226m on fat-cat pay, spin doctors and other running costs – and claim it goes to frontline service

It says that what money is being spent on it being hidden by how the charity commission require accounts to be reported.

The article highlights how Save the Children claims to spend 100% of its expenditure on 'Charitable causes' to make it look like its spending it all on those it's supported to support and yet they pay their Chief Executive £200,000.

Are chief executives really charitable causes rather than a bog standard staff expenditure?!!!

So with that in mind it having got me thinking, I thought I'd have a look at Stonewall...

apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1101255&SubsidiaryNumber=0

Here's Stonewall's page on the charity commission website.

It's pretty vague. It says that 83% of its expenditure goes on charitable causes. So it doesn't look too bad on the face of it.

Income item
Voluntary - £1,332,140
Trading to raise funds - £3,526
Investment - £47,293
Charitable activities - £5,456,648
Other - £406,107
Total - £7,245,714
Investment gains 0

Spending type item
Income generation and governance
£1,273,841 17%
^Charitable spending £6,217,261 83%
^

So I delved a bit deeper into the actual annual report to see how it breaks down.

beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details?regid=1101255&subid=0
Here are the documents.

If you look through the expenditure for the charity, it's interesting where they do get their money from.

The last accounts filed were for the year ending Sept 2017. I believe the next accounts are due in March (something to look out for)

Anyway, this falls into Individual donations, Corporate donations, Legacies, Donated services and grants for charitable services. (Donated services comprise pro bono professional legal support, media services and gifts for catering)

Let's start with 2016 figures (this was up from 2015 BTW)
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

So most of the £7. 2million into the charity which appears on the charity commission profile isn't documented as donations and grants. It falls under 'fees' or from assets.

The other thing I note in the accounts is the skyrocketing expediture on staff. This will cover staff for the running of the charity as well as training and raising money.

This comes in, in 2015 as £3,348,812, 2016 as £3,887,731 and 2017 £4,424,946.

In 2016 they had an income of just over £7million, in 2017 it was £7.2million.

And crucially, they made a surplus in 2016 but their expenditure in 2017 relied on what was in the bank account to cover it.

So a few things here;

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.

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!

It's been stated before that their success is actually the biggest threat to the charity. They have to stay relevant for their services to be in demand and they have to have an image that appeals on a corporate level. I'd also argue this increasing dependancy makes them vulnerable to losing sight of their original purpose.

So why did Ruth Hunt quit?

Could the timing suggest something else to what's been speculated on so far in this thread? I remind you, that the next accounts for the year ending September 2018 are due next month.

Did the bubble burst in 2018 with a PR disaster affecting its corporate income?

Was 2017 just a blip or did the charity again blow a shit load in staffing costs in 2018 and did they have to rely on what was already in the bank account to cover spiralling expediture?

If that's indeed the case, would Ruth Hunt still have the confidence of the Trustees?

If 2018 was really bad in terms of the accounts, you'd expect the shit to hit the fan when the accounts came in to the board and just before they were due to be published with the charity commission.

Sometime in, oh late February perhaps...

I could be wildly off the mark but I will speculate that we should be keeping an eye out for those next bunch of figures...

I should add that I doubt Stonewall is particularly bad on the transparency thing, certainly compared to save the child. It's just there seems to be an overall issue with a lot of charities.

RTB, brilliant!

Is it the grassroots LGBT community still or is it their own nice little gravy train and the corporate cool?

I am sure there is a growing unease within the public sector about Stonewall's dual training/advice and lobbying roles, particularly since 2015 and the more aggressive trans lobbying. I suspect their Metro ad just before the GRA consultation deadline which included the logos of about 40 public and private sector organisations was a particular own goal. Association with such lobbying was probably illegal for the public sector, and I suspect some of the private ones were not too happy either.

I think Stonewall serves it own interests and the interests of those close to it.

Is it the grassroots LGBT community still or is it their own nice little gravy train and the corporate cool?

See corporate networking event and details.
Worth looking at the 'template business case', Stonewall rely heavily on their often ambiguous surveys for leverage so will often cite as fact what is self reported opinion from a self selecting group.

www.stonewall.org.uk/events/stonewall-workplace-conference-london-2019

The 50k donation by Watson is pretty hefty in terms of individual donations historically.

But the charity have to demonstrate they are receiving a certain amount of personal donations, and that there isn't a collapse in them, to demonstrate their relevance and connection with the grassroots.

No one will check who made the donation when the financial go out.

But on a personal level it's self serving of Watson. His employability gets a boost due to his Stonewall links. He gets more money in his pocket because of it. If Stonewall loses relevance his gay creditials aren't a big deal anymore, and arguably it'd hit his income.

I certainly don't see the donation as being anything more than self serving in many respects. It smacks of a creeping desperation.

I don't know. As I say I'm speculating, but if the books do turn out not to be pretty....

Also it made me realise that Stonewall are more vulnerable to a big court case than you might think. They need donations of legal time more than you think if they were faced with a big law suit. They have about £5million in the bank, but that isn't going to last long if they have many repeats of 2017.

From The Times article:

"Stonewall withdraws representatives from panels that include people who disagree with its stance on self-identification".

I wasn't aware that this was an official policy of theirs.

But slanging matches on Twitter are fine, apparently.

Wholly unprofessional on both fronts.

They appointed a COE last year in addition to the Chief Exec. That won't have come cheap.

Helen Moulinos is the Chief Operating Officer of Stonewall. Helen joined Stonewall in July 2018, having worked in the Charity Sector for Age UK, Alzheimer’s Society and The Children’s Society and the private sector for Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Lloyds Banking Group and HSBC in Investment Banking focused on Mergers and Acquisitions and Outsourcing previously.

Since joining Stonewall, she grown and diversified our Fundraising and Grants activities, negotiated new commercial partnerships and restructured our approach to due diligence, streamlined internal Operations and broadened our relationships with Corporate and Civil Society collaborators and partners. Helen is responsible for leading our Development Council and Ambassador activities and growing and deepening these relationships with our supporters. Helen also stewards our finances and manages the day-to-day operation of Stonewall.

Helen has always been an active human rights advocate, believing in the power of an individual’s diversity. Building a fully inclusive Charity is at the top of her strategic priorities making sure Stonewall practices reflect and respect the rights her activist workforce champion every day.

Helen holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Creative Studies from Hofstra University and Masters of Science degree in Finance from Baruch City University of New York. For 28 years, Helen has actively campaigned for Sexual Health and Mental Health reform in New York and London and is an active Civil Society Board Trustee and Volunteer.

www.stonewall.org.uk/people/helen-moulinos

its gonna be that bearded lady.

It was certainly their policy when Bex was on Womans Hour.

What the hell is a degree in Creatibe Studies?

On the upside, after reading this thread, my arts degree is looking positively high brow.

("Stonewall withdraws representatives from panels that include people who disagree with its stance on self-identification".*

As Melroses says, Bex Stinson (Stonewall Head of Trans Inclusion) refused to be in the Woman's Hour studio with Jane Garvey and Helen Lewis for the first of the 'Sex & Gender' programs:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3428918-Womans-Hour-Tues-20-11-18-Why-is-the-current-debate-about-sex-and-gender-so-often-called-toxic-we-hear-from-Bex-Stinson-and-helenlewis

Bex Stinson 'Peak Transed' my Dad who was listening and utterly baffled by Stinson's decision and comments

Why the hell do the BBC indulge this idiocy?

Stonewall won't share a platform with anyone who believes that ID may have implications for women. Therefore, rather than telling Stonewall to fuck off right off, the BBC facilitates pre-recorded segments that allow Stonewall's message to be broadcast unchallenged.

Same with the McKinnon and Fair Play for Women story on the Stephen Nolan show. McKinnon refused to debate so Nic Williams was kicked off the panel.

And the more than the BBC caves to these bullies, the more demands transgender individuals and groups are going to make on the BBC. Because the BBC allows itself to be pushed around.

BBC is a disgrace. Truly.

Totally against their own guidelines www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/fairness/refusals-to-take-part

BBC has demonstrated profound levels of bias towards TRA and in support of trans ideology.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296433-BBC-Bias-Collecting-Examples-here

The 2017 accounts reveal they had
1 employee on £60,000 to £69,999
1 employee on £70,000 to £79,999
1 employee on £80,000 to £89,999
1 employee on £90,000 to £99,999

It also states that the key management personall of the organisation increased in the year and comprises the Chief Executive, the Managing Director and two Executive Directors. The total employee benefits of key management personnel of the organisation were £311, 842 (2016: £203,651).

The 2016 figures show there was only two personall above £60,000; one person in the £80,000 band and one person in the £90,000 band

So you've got to assume that the new CEO is going to fall into this bracket above £60,000.

Why have they suddenly needed to take on so many key personell in corporate jobs in the last 3 years?

(June 29th 2018) From last year's Westminster Social Policy Forum, 'Next Steps for TRansgender Equality' thread:

Pratchet who attended wrote:
"Well they'll know it's over. Bex Stinson was asked how they got Scotland to cave so quickly and said it was because they had private conversation in private rooms with the people who provide services, not people who use them. I mean, that's how brazen and confident they were, to come out and say that and not think there's anything bad about it. That is over. Women are watching."

cf Herald article

'Schools 'forget' girls in rush to adopt pro-trans guidance campaigners claim as Christian group threatens legal action'

"THE rights of Scottish schoolgirls are being undermined by rules allowing pupils to adopt a different gender and share changing rooms, it has been claimed, as it emerged schools are unprepared for the controversial overhaul.

A series of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests have revealed that councils have widely backed guidelines produced by organisations campaigning for the rights of transgender people but have not considered how the new approach will affect children – particularly girls.

The new guidelines tell teachers that if a transgender pupil wishes to share a changing room with "other young people who share their gender identity," they should be allowed to do so.

"There is no reason for parents or carers of the other pupils to be informed," it adds.

The guidelines say young people should be able to compete in the sports events for the gender they identify with, and says if other pupils are uncomfortable using changing rooms or toilets with transgender pupils, they should use other facilities or wait until the transgender pupil is done.

However none of the councils involved, nor the children’s commissioner, nor Education Scotland have carried out an equality impact assessment to ensure the rights and wellbeing of other pupils are unaffected. This means the impact on other students has not been taken into account. (continues)

www.heraldscotland.com/news/16311379.schools-forget-girls-in-rush-to-adopt-pro-trans-guidance-campaigners-claim-as-christian-group-threatens-legal-action/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3268237-Westminster-Social-Policy-forum-today-Next-steps-for-transgender-Equality-WSPFEvents?pg=2

I have a basic qualification in bookkeeping. And one in management. My degree also has 'history' in the title. Can I win a prize? Or a £60,000 a year job please?

RedToothBrush have you seen this recent thread? There's quite a lot of collated information you may find interesting.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3488261-The-Financial-Juggernaut-that-is-Stonewall

And the more than the BBC caves to these bullies, the more demands transgender individuals and groups are going to make on the BBC. Because the BBC allows itself to be pushed around.

Tunge Ogungbesan (Head of Diversity, Inclusion and Succession BBC) was a speaker at the Westminster Policy Forum, 'Next Steps for Transgender Equality'
Some with influence the BBC may be committed to the same aims.