Found this on twitter

[SarahTancredi]

And thought it was interesting.

Not sure what go make of it.

If its true then thats alot of time and money wasted.
www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/nottinghamshire-police-end-participation-stonewalls-3289244.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Interesting. It could be a completely insignificant thing - as the article says, just a way of saving time and resource in compiling the entry. Or it could be an indication of Nottingham's disillusionment with Stonewall. Wasn't it Nottingham who decided to make misogyny a hate crime? I wonder if their eyes are being opened.

Reading between the lines it is possible to at the very least wonder that maybe the criteria got more and more difficult to implement. What would it be do you think that they would have to do. Presumably most work places have those who are gay or whatever akd are hopefully treated with respect and decency at work. Just what could be needed that costs 1000

I suspect it's related to money and the need to be seen to investing in better race relations at a time when tensions are heightened and BLM are making a lot of noise about defunding the police and other structural change.

Budgets only stretch so far so I think it's about taking it from one diversity pot to put it into another.

Budgets only stretch so far so I think it's about taking it from one diversity pot to put it into another

The article said the resource hasnt decreased.

I am genuinely wondering what they have to do. I mean presumably once they have implemented stuff that stuff wont change so what is the ranking based on. What are the criteria

I saw a police vehicle with masses of logos, including Stonewall. I wrote to our Police and Crime Commissioner to find out whether this affected the independence of the Police. I think there has been a big re-think after a court case on free speech (can't remember the details) but the judge said we were not a NAZI state. I know the police were glad to have some direction within the law.

I hope I haven't confused things. Diversity needs the budget to go across the piece and not to the loudest voices.

Sometimes I feel that the balance is a bit one-sided and certainly I would be concerned if my staff associations were concerned, but they’re not

What could this mean do you think. And does that hint that the police could potentially be responding to calls and reciting crimes etc when they were unable to implement the criteria themselves ?

The force can't confirm the exact time it took for staff to compile the information to submit a Stonewall application, however, we can say it took the equality and diversity officer at least three months to input the relevant data.

"The cost for submission was in the excess of £1,000."

In 2018 our ranking decreased very slightly by four points to 39th out of 434 employers.
“This was due to the changes in the assessment cycle and the additional criteria included within the index to promote trans+ inclusion.

Hope other forces follow suit. Talk about the tale wagging the dog.

So basically, it took alot of time and money , the stuff got every increasingly harder to implement, they were paying for the privilege of jumping through impossible hoops that had potential to threaten relationships with staff and still it wasnt enough to even make the top ten...

@SarahTancredi

Budgets only stretch so far so I think it's about taking it from one diversity pot to put it into another

The article said the resource hasnt decreased.

I am genuinely wondering what they have to do. I mean presumably once they have implemented stuff that stuff wont change so what is the ranking based on. What are the criteria

I see. Perhaps I misunderstood.

@SarahTancredi

So basically, it took alot of time and money , the stuff got every increasingly harder to implement, they were paying for the privilege of jumping through impossible hoops that had potential to threaten relationships with staff and still it wasnt enough to even make the top ten...

I do think the whole index is a bit of a ponzi scheme. Maybe they realised this.

Which begs the question if the police are unable to be fully inclusive themselves ( not saying they arent as they probably are in the logical sense fir the most part in what day to day stuff they have to do) but if they cant keep it up to a degree that's " acceptable " are they now calling people or bringing in people based on criteria they themselves cant follow?

I'd say that's a bit if a scandal really

It is interesting- there's a whole industry out there where you pay to prove your credit. I would think the more general ones which include human and employment rights were as effective.

Nottingham is the first force to collate misogynistic hate crimes. However they also have an outspoken 'women's' centre which prides itself on having been inclusive of trans women. Very anti JKR. Bothered to make a public statement about it.

It is interesting- there's a whole industry out there where you pay to prove your credit. I would think the more general ones which include human and employment rights were as effective

Do you think it's a bit like their learning packs? The one where sandwiched between Martin Luther king and gay rights activist is a male bodied person who left their family and denied their kids existence maintain the illusion they were infertile as a result of being intersex and was the first person to have reassignment surgery ? So slowly but surely reasonable measures were implemented and slightly less reasonable ones sandwiched between but not really noticed and then they moved in for the big guns and they were like ....erm ..shit what do we do ..?

I would imagine that as the Police attend a lot of domestic violence call outs and see who the perpetrators of violent crimes are first hand, that there may have been push back from officers on the ground saying these are not the only people we need to protect and it’s wasting time that could be spent on much larger minorities. I’ve never met a Police officer who was backwards in coming forwards.

And yet on twitter there was that recording a while back where a woman was talking to the police about her ex and they were gaslighting her and refusing to use "him" despite her insistence that she had had sex with his very male body etc

So not convinced on the pushback

Nottingham is the first force to collate misogynistic hate crimes. However they also have an outspoken 'women's' centre which prides itself on having been inclusive of trans women. Very anti JKR. Bothered to make a public statement about it.

The one for self-identifying women?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3678957-Nottingham-Womens-Centre-events-are-for-all-self-identifying-women?pg=1

The sooner all police forces and other organisations realise that they can work on diversity and inclusion without these mad schemes the better. Stonewall doesn't 'own' diversity.

The sooner all police forces and other organisations realise that they can work on diversity and inclusion without these mad schemes the better. Stonewall doesn't 'own' diversity

Perhaps like the word woman the word diversity needs a definition ? One that doesnt mean that white men can identify into every category whilst employers are ticking the boxes and getting certificates?

I am genuinely wondering what they have to do. I mean presumably once they have implemented stuff that stuff wont change so what is the ranking based on. What are the criteria

I imagine that there is an ongoing work 'burden' of keeping up with Stonewall policy, definitions and requirements for what is submitted, checking you have an audit trail for it all, supporting evidence etc just to come out with a ranking that one may perhaps view as somewhat arbitrary. As they say in the article '“There is a financial cost to it, both in participation but also in the time your employees take to compile and comply with its requirements." Would be interested in reading the criteria too and whether they change year on year - I've found this one from 2017.
www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stonewall_wei_2017_guidance.pdf

"2016 marked the first time Stonewall included trans criteria in the Workplace Equality Index. Specific work on trans inclusion will be monitored in the 2017 Index, but those questions will not count toward organisations’ final mark. This is to allow time for employers to implement trans specific work in a safe, legal manner.
From 2018, trans specific questions will count toward final marks, and organisations that cannot demonstrate specific commitments to trans equality will be unable to be listed as a Top 100 Employer. "

I tried, I really did, but my brain kept melting. So I don't know what the criteria are. It takes a special kind of person to engage with that kind of language.

I assume the guidance accompanies the actual questionnaire or whatever the submission is, so would need to be read in conjunction (as per tax returns etc)

I dunno how you would even prove any of it?

Take photos of the staff all getting changed together? Invoices for signs for the doors?

Couldnt they all just self identify as gay and instantly be the most inclusive employer ever ?

So their diversity officer spent 3 months just doing the application...

Looks like they realised that their time and energy was being monopolised by one area and they wanted to balance more with other protected characteristics -age sex disability etc while still keeping LGBT+ etc in there as well.

Good for them.

I hope others follow suit.

Looks like they realised that their time and energy was being monopolised by one area and they wanted to balance more with other protected characteristics -age sex disability etc while still keeping LGBT+ etc in there as well

Do you think they also discovered the conflicts? That despite having a kosher or halal option in the canteen their religious staff left becuase there were no single sex facilities or the disabled people left because their loo was now monopolized by the religious staff who were using it instead of sharing with the men...

Doubt it, but it's still a good thing.