Staff revolt as 'non-feminist' weapons firm CEO hired to run Refuge

[stumbledin]

Britain's best known domestic violence charity is in turmoil over the appointment of a woman who runs a weapons technology company as its new chairman.

The senior management team at Refuge are demanding the resignation of Hetti Barkworth-Nanton over her role as chief executive of a Ministry of Defence spin-off company that has developed silent ammunition, hand grenades and a new type of explosive.

In a whistle-blowing letter, seen by The Daily Telegraph, senior Refuge staff warned that her appointment would damage the “reputation and financial well-being” of the charity.

Mrs Barkworth-Nanton is the chief executive of Ploughshare Innovations Ltd, based at Porton Down in Wiltshire, which sells “defence and security technologies” developed in MoD laboratories.

Refuge staff say her involvement in the arms trade is incompatible with a domestic violence charity that abhors violence.

They also accuse her of not being a feminist and of trying to “impose radical change” on a charity “at the height of its reputation”.

In a private report, seen by The Telegraph, Dame Stella Rimington, the former MI5 head and a former Refuge trustee, criticised its board for appointing Mrs Barkworth-Nanton without making “more effort to keep the management team on side” and failing to appreciate the extent of the risk caused.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/11/staff-revolt-non-feminist-weapons-firm-boss-hired-run-domestic/

(Dont have access to entire article but am gob smacked not just by the new Chair being CEO of an arms firm but that Stella Rimington MI5 also involved. Pot? kettle?)

I don’t think anyone has said they don’t think she needs to be a feminist. Although many women don’t call themselves feminists and still fight for women. I wouldn’t die in a ditch over that.

She clearly knows male violence and oppression when she sees it and wants to do something about it.

Its not a "pile on". This is about feminist practice and trying to keep it intact. Not about individuals women who have worked with the system.

It is about the women who need to know the organisation they go to will act on principle and not on some clever financial twist.

If the staff are raising concerns that's enough for me.

If a FWR board cant support women at the bottom end of the pecking order sticking their necks out on a matter of feminist principle what is the point of it.

This isn't an episode of Dragons Den.

Though of course these types of comments illustrate why mission drift in support services happen so easily.

This isn't an episode of Dragons Den
.
No one is saying it is. But this woman does seem to have a reason for becoming a DV campaigner, as her best friend was brutally murdered by her husband, so I'm not sure why she should be automatically barred from this role, for reasons others have pointed out.

It entirely depends on her actions for me, not some knee jerk woke purity spiral. Plenty of people who work in refuges are contributing to a world in which there will no longer be female spaces, so I'm not assuming they're definitely correct on everything. We need more details on exactly what the issue is here.

Give me a break - all sorts of people are moved by personally experiences and are usually the worst people to set up a professional service.

Some individual's idea of what the best sort of response to someone facing domestic violence is not informed by professional practice, which is what refuge gets it money for. Not some individual wearing her heart of her sleeve.

She is not qualified.

Defending feminist principles and actions are the exact opposite of being woke.

The staff have said she is a problem to their work practice.

If she is alienating the staff something is really wrong.

And not to support them it getting this sorted is working against the women who need the actual workers not some do gooder building up her good works CV to counteract her paid work.

It would be nice to think that on a FWR board women would support women on the frontline.

Someone has posted these on facebook from a group that allows employees to rate their employer!

Charity in crisis thanks to useless trustees New chair Mrs Barkworth-Nanton and rest of the trustees are out of touch with what we do. Chair held staff meetings and rubbished us being a feminist organisation. Bragged we were lucky to have her as chair. Boasted as CEO of a company that makes technology sold for use in armed conflict around the world, instead of entire villages being bombed out, only part were now. Well, that's ok then isn't it? We are a non violent charity. We support women and children some have been raped and tortured in conflict. Deranged board. Advice to Management Please help staff - this board is a nightmare. - Tragically, new chair Hetti-Barkworth Nanton does not describe herself as feminist, one of our core values. Equally disturbing, she is CEO of Ploughshare Innovations, a company that profits from the weapons industry. Asked last week how that squares with being chair of an anti-violence charity, she said she didn’t particularly like the weapons side of Ploughshare’s work, but nowadays, instead of blowing up whole villages, they had new technology that only blows up some of the village! Advice to Management A corporate, privileged board has taken control of Refuge - arrogant, patronising, blindly confident they will ‘fix us’ – it’s like being in the grip of an occupying force. They should go.

Me and many of my team are really worried about the new chair. Most of us are in this work as we are feminists committed to gender equality, and have strong ethical principals. The fact that she has said that it is not important that she or the board are feminists, and her background as a CEO in the weapons industry are really troubling for me. Having met her I get the feeling that she really wants to make her mark, and given her values I do fear for the future of the organisation now. I would have really recommended this as a place to work, but now I would say maybe wait and see.
Advice to Management
Refuge needs to have a strong board and leadership that has feminism and anti violence at it's heart.
-----
I was totally blind-sighted by the newly appointed chair - Hetti-Barkworth Nanton of Ploughshare Innovations Limited. This in itself seems to directly oppose the very ethos of Refuge on a number of levels; primarily any connection to the weapons industry is not compatible when we know that the biggest victims in any war / conflict is always women and children … women and children, the group that Refuge has fought to support so passionately since the 1970’s. Hetti-Barkworth Nanton has publicly stated that she is not a feminist; Refuge has a solid behaviours framework in place which strongly reinforces the necessity of having a feminist ethos at the heart of the organisation.

Refuge is a unique organisation, many of the staff like myself are survivors of abuse and to hear comments such as 'Refuge will be obsolete in 10 years and she has come to 'fix us' is deeply upsetting and insulting. Please do not allow the very heart and soul to be torn from the organisation ... Stand together, stand firm, stand in unity like all brave women have done throughout feminist history to support each other, support our CEO Sandra Horley and get back to what we are amazing at ... empowering each other !!

I’m shocked by the appointment of chair Hetti Barkworth-Nanton on 1 June. She is CEO of Ploughshare Innovations – which develops weaponry. At an all staff meeting she told us that nowadays weapons were less destructive – instead of ‘blowing up an entire village the weapons would only blow up part of it’. Refuge is about anti-violence! And the consequences of war go far beyond weapons – much sexual violence against women is associated with conflict. Many of us are survivors – what about the impact on us and our clients? Hetti also openly says she isn’t a feminist – a core value of Refuge’s. If you’re thinking about joining Refuge be warned as this seems to have been brushed under the carpet.

it is heartbreaking to hear the newly appointed chair Hetti is a non feminist and is CEO of company that sells weapon. i feel this is unforgivable which is exist to end violence against women, girls and children to have a chair who is CEO of organisation acknowledges that her company bombs the villages but justifies that bombs half the village. it is insulting to hear that she says Refuge will be Obsolete in 10 years and she has come to change the organisation . Refuge is a great organisation with feminist values of equality and empowerment provides high quality service . the organisation has grown year on year and is the largest provider in this flied as a result of having fantastic team and strong leadership to hear new chair wanting to change the organisation is very worrying for staff and service users and donors
Advice to Management
Refuge is an organisation to end violence against women and girls and children how is it possible to have a chair who is CEO of company selling weapon ? she in non feminist and wants to change organisation ! this can not be happening ,

-----
Comment pre appointment of new chair:

your views, your experience don't matter. you are a cog in Sandra Horley's money and fame mongering machine, you are here to be exploited and treated with utter contempt. they will exploit you because you are a woman and because you care about protecting women and children. this is misogyny. expect this treatment amplified by 100 if you are BAME.

www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Refuge-Reviews-E743837_P2.htm

Erin Pizzey isn't the problem with Refuge, she hasn't been near the place since the 80's. It's really disingenuous to suggest her - admittedly anti-feminist - work since then has influenced the practice and philosophy since then, I remember reading a guardian interview with her which basically said no one from 'the movement' had been near her for the past 20 years.

Sandra Horley earns a shed-load of money and has been accused of bad leadership, bullying and cronyism.

Corporate trustees bring experience of dealing with budgets and grants into the millions. I agree that defence and feminism aren't natural partners, but I also expect the selection committee were looking for a particular skill set... which brings me to the real issue, which is the way charities in England (specifically) are pitted against each other for funding and the criteria are used. I absolutely agree it's ridiculous that Refuge's volunteer model won the national helpline contract, taking jobs away from the sector and from the skilled, dedicated women that manned helplines. But that's not Refuge's fault - that's the fault of the system that applies commercial values to charitable endeavours. In which case, you can't blame charities for appointing commercial experts to their boards.

The whole system is rotten, but that comes from govt not charities.

God, so many typos, has been taken.

The comment that the new chair doesn't describe herself as feminist has just jumped out at me though OP, and I agree that's very disturbing.

Climb down off your high horse, StumbledIn. I am a victim/survivor of DV so it's not academic to me. As was another pp who said the same as me.

I specifically said that I needed more information to know why it was a problem that this specific woman could not be Chair. Which you have now given. However I do think it's good for people to have real life experience of DV to work in this area, not to just be "feminists" (and we all know how much that term has been traduced). So I stand by what I said.

I'm afraid I don't put as much faith in the women's sector as you do. I think there is a massive problem with wokeness and the merry go round of people working in charities, which other people have mentioned and you acknowledged you might be out of touch with.

Another totally incoherent stance from 'feminists'. A women who's risen to a top position of CEO in what i imagine is a male dominated work space, told she no longer 'fits in' with other women so should leave.

Lol at the idea that this thread equates to trying to bully a woman out of her job

We're just chatting. No one is sending her threats or getting gangs of people to write to them!

The high horse comment made me twitch.
Men have said that to me to shut me up. Is it often directed at men?

Anyway I agree with op.

The weapons trade is responsible for untold misery around the world which impacts women and children disproportionately.

I'm sure the woman in question cares.

But it's a conflict of interests and inappropriate as far as I'm concerned.

I am genuinely shocked that some on this thread seem to think not being a feminist isn't an issue if you are part of an organisation like Refuge.

Well, the vast majority of women aren't, so you could argue that they might identify better with a non feminist.

I'm more frustrated by people who look down their noses at military technology whilst benefiting from the protections/deterrent it provides our society. Also, how it's 'left to the men' to sort, which doesn't really help counter the view of women as weak and helpless.

^The high horse comment made me twitch.
Men have said that to me to shut me up. Is it often directed at men?^

Look at what OP said to women she didn't agree with, before you criticise them. I thought her patronising and dismissive comments were uncalled for. That's often directed at women, too.

Telling us we aren't supporting women because we'd like some further information about what the exact problem with this woman was? When many people who call themselves "feminists", including many women who are high level in women's organisations are woke and quite happy to chuck women and girls under the bus.

'I'm more frustrated by people who look down their noses at military technology whilst benefiting from the protections/deterrent it provides our society. '

Arms are one of the UK big exports. Our weapons have been sold to /ended up in the hands of people who have caused serious suffering.

Yes I have a problem with that.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/25/uk-arms-trade-repressive-regimes

'In 2018, the UK sold £173m worth of arms to states on the Foreign Office list of “human rights priority countries” – nations identified as having human rights issues.

But last year this increased to £849m, an increase of 390%.'

Why is being involved in the defence industry automatically non-feminist? Also ‘feminism’ carries a lot of baggage as a word which means a lot of women who are fighting for women’s right won’t call themselves feminists. We know a lot of people call themselves feminists are nothing if the sort.

I agree with others who express concern that this is about purity spirals.

Having seen the quotes from staff there do appear to be genuine concerns with the management of the charity, but I stand by my comments before OP supplied those. I do think a lot of charity stuff is corporate bollocks anyway. The big charities get local or national contracts and take services away from smaller ones who can better provide person-centred services and care about the people who need them.

Being concerned about the UK arms trade and whether those involved are an ethical match for a charity like refuge is a 'purity spiral' now is it?

Interesting.

Various responses

The reference to Erin Pizzey was for someone up thread who asked why there was an historical difference between WAFE and Refuge. And the Political patronage of Refuge rather then the actual lead organisation on DV provision came from her early stardom.

As far as I am concerned the fact that the article said the issue for staff was the lack of feminist approach. I got the quotes from the employment web site because someone else on facebook was so concerned about this. So the person coming up with remarks trying to imply that this was all about a pile on or being on a hight horse could themselve have done this (and read the whole article) but felt happier sitting at her keyboard thinking personal insults were the way to response to a crucial issue for feminists / the provivision of women only service.

But do agree that since Labour thought what was the voluntary sector shouldn't get funding unless it became more "business like" and created the whole Third Sector corruption of purpose model, means that many groups that were genuinely responding to need have been lost and large corporate generic services have gobbled up specialised services. And funders have pushed this further as they think it means more is delivered for less, although in most instances what savings that might have been are lost on senior executive salaries who say they should be paid on financial turnover not on the actual quality of service.

But even though I and others think that Refuge should be closed and its refuges given to the local WA projects in the area they are located, that doesn't mean I am not going to worry that the organisation that has got through political patronage the National Domestic Violence Helpline should be run by an organisation with feminist principles.

to imply that this was all about a pile on or being on a hight horse could themselve have done this (and read the whole article) but felt happier sitting at her keyboard thinking personal insults were the way to response to a crucial issue for feminists / the provivision of women only service.

No, Stumbledin it was you who was contemptuous of the views of others. So look to yourself first. As I said, I am a DV survivor and I feel very strongly that people involved in DV services should understand the human impact of DV. Something you also sneered at.

I do understand the conflict of interest here but I feel your sanctimonious tone is deeply unhelpful, and it's not the first time I've ever thought that. So yes, you can get off your high horse.

Being concerned about the UK arms trade and whether those involved are an ethical match

That is a different question.

But you appear to feel it's constructive to carry on taking pot shots at other women. And I am not letting that slide. So I suggest you stop doing it, and we draw a line under it, and have a respectful discussion. I'm not the only person whose back you got up.

Aesop- from the op

'Britain's best known domestic violence charity is in turmoil over the appointment of a woman who runs a weapons technology company as its new chairman.

The senior management team at Refuge are demanding the resignation of Hetti Barkworth-Nanton over her role as chief executive of a Ministry of Defence spin-off company that has developed silent ammunition, hand grenades and a new type of explosive.'

How on earth is it a different question? It is the role point of the thread.

I don't know much of the history but I do think having someone involved in any arms sales is bad PR for a charity such as this.

If they had been in the military i.e. served that would be different, but weapons technology is not the fluffiest arena and PR does matter with charities.

So, for perhaps superficial reasons, I am rather surprised by this.