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?)

The UK arms trade is a massively contraversial topic.

I'm really surprised at so many posters saying so what.

And even more at the idea that posters are trying to bully her out of her job (by having an online chat) and that as she's successful in a male dominated industry, the feminist thing to do is turn a blind eye to the (to me) obvious issues with someone involved in the arms trade having this role.

MRAs have an angle that feminists think women can do no wrong. This thread supports their view, to my mind.

It is all quite odd - why was Dame Stella Rimington of MI5 involved, too? Was she a trustee at the same time she was in MI5, and why is her name public on this if she is a "former trustee" and not a current one?

For me personally, it was about her "not being a feminist" which is one of the reasons given for them wanting her to resign. I can understand her wanting to be involved in DV services if her best friend was brutally murdered by her husband, and I do think that kind of human experience is important. Which is why I wanted the full details.

I agree there is a conflict of interest with the industry she is in. Who appointed her? Presumably they are fully aware of her background in arms sales. They can't just kick her out now she is there, so I'm not sure what they are expecting to happen.

I would need to know more.

Not a feminist — what does she mean? Given that a lot who’ll say they are feminists will also say twaw... this means nothing. Definitions needed.

Weapons company — again, depends. War and conflict are extremely complicated and reducing collateral damage may be a laudable aim.

Appointment process — if correct processes were used, I don’t see an issue.

Corporatisation of the sector — May well be an issue but it is not necessarily limited to this woman’s appointment.

More info needed.

What if a survivor comes from a defence company background?

Will they be turned away and denied support?

It's too purity spiral. A DA charity should be completely non judgemental and completely neutral.

@Theskyisblueithink It's not a purity spiral. Refuge is a feminist organisation, it's not neutral. While no two feminist organisations are neutral, they all more or less believe that the causes of violence against women are gender-based, structural, and preventable. That's not a neutral position.

Obviously anyone seeking services would be treated in a completely non-judgemental way, but the organisation itself isn't neutral.

this is really interesting I think, and lots of issues here. (am in the sector).

I have really mixed views about the appointment of this person as the Chair, but it seems at the very least as though they (the Board) really misjudged the strength of feeling of the staff members and their power/ability to rock the boat.

And yes, I agree with pp - domestic abuse is a feminist issue (as domestic violence is a gender based crime) so I can't see how anyone can be on the Board who doesn't agree with that viewpoint. I know also that the staff of these charities feel so strongly about this. Rightly in my view - I don't see how anyone could be the chair of this charity without identifying as a feminist.

I don't necessarily feel that a trustee needs to have experience of DV to be on the Board actually - there are lots of skills that are more important in this case, although that would help (the Chair of my charity does not have experience of our cause either).

But it seems that having a person who works in the arms trade is at least a major PR blunder. I would personally not want someone who works in the arms trade running my organisation - I'd have serious doubts about their morals and ethics. I really would.

There are lots of decent women who don't self define as feminists, and a lot who do but don't really care that much about women and girls. I don't agree it's that simple. Everyone should be assessed on their own merits.

And I don't have the greatest opinion of the charity sector as a whole, and have also worked in it.

I agree it's a PR blunder for the Chair to be involved in the arms trade. It was more about her as a person, on her own merits.

I really strongly feel that at least some people on the board should have experience of DV and aren't just another person on the Big Charity merry go round, just like in the healthcare sector you are supposed to have patient involvement at all levels, including board level. Skills are important but so is centring the needs of the users of the service. And sometimes those needs get forgotten.

I accept that this woman was a poor choice, but I can believe that she was in part motivated to become a DV campaigner by the awful death of her friend. And I do think there are a lot of weird things about this whole situation.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I really strongly feel that at least some people on the board should have experience of DV and aren't just another person on the Big Charity merry go round, just like in the healthcare sector you are supposed to have patient involvement at all levels, including board level. Skills are important but so is centring the needs of the users of the service. And sometimes those needs get forgotten.

I accept that this woman was a poor choice, but I can believe that she was in part motivated to become a DV campaigner by the awful death of her friend. And I do think there are a lot of weird things about this whole situation.

I am a victim of DV too .

My personal view - yes DV it is a feminist issue and if you want to make systemic change rather than just dealing with individuals who are affected, then you need to look at the causes. And I think it would be very difficult to be in this charity without identifying strongly as a feminist. Not least because all staff members feel very strongly about it.

My personal view of this woman - sure let her be on the Board, but to make her Chair was at the very least an error of judgement.

Also acknowledge there are issues about the charity sector which aren't brilliant.

Have just seen a Press Release to say that Sandra Horley is to leave Refuge where she has been CEO for 37 years.

And will stop work immediately because of outstanding leave!!

www.refuge.org.uk/sandra-horley-retiring/

I wonder is this is part of the new Board thinking they want to make "radical change".

Also concerned that they are not employing an interim CEO but someone who is a "leader". Sounds like all that crap about if somebody is charismatic (ie self absorbed egoist) is competent to manage an organisation.

Have googled Carole Easton and she seems to have gone from Young Woman's Trust to Advance and now at Refuge all within a few months.

Would love to hear from the staff in the previous two projects what she was like.

Will be interesting to see if her background in women's sector groups will meld with the new committee's lack of experience in that area.

It’s Tommy this and Tommy that and “Chuck ‘im out, the brute!”