FOI Network Rail and Stonewall

[OhHolyJesus]

This is genius!

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/theimpacttofnetworkkrail_being?fbclid=IwAR2YLSqqcslRDgXDDAVdEBXM5Xwog3vyplMPwvFy093tfYINDPtQysvDNfM

So, just wonder if I understand this. Network Rail (under Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Policy and Procedure and Noelle Stratton's letter) are misrepresenting the legislation in relation to the 'Gender Reassignment' and also the 'Sex' characteristic.

1. They are falsely/erroneously purporting that transgenderism is a protected characteristic under 'sex', whereas, only men and women (as in the dictionary definition) are protected under the sex characteristic.

1. Also, Danielle Stratton states in the letter that Gender is a protected characteristic along with 'Gender Reassignment'. However there is no characteristic called Gender in the Act. Gender Reassignment is the characteristic protection for a Transexuals (Act doesn't state Transgender) as stated in the legislation. This is only if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

Whatever that means.

However, again Danielle Stratton states that As gender(sic) and gender reassignment are covered in the Equality Act 2010 deliberate misgendering by an employee may result in action aligned to our bullying and harassment policy.

Given their ignorance of the Equality Act, I'd bet my hat that the toilets are against the law, too:

'We do not have a policy in relation to our toilets but at our Milton Keynes office with the provision of toilets for women and men we have a set of gender neutral toilets.'

I notice they repeat that false claim “under the Equality Act 2010 gender and gender reassignment are protected characteristics” three times.

They have obviously never bothered to read the text of the Equality Act, which is fairly short and simple. Why would you not even bother to check when a lobby group tells you something that’s disputed?

Oh dear...who wants to tell them they are wrong...

Thing is, if no-one has actually checked the text of the act and are then prioritising gender rather than sex in practical decisions, it's no surprise that organisations will be misapplying the law and being quite indignant when challenged. Especially if they've shelled out a load of cash to be trained to get it right...

I've just noticed that in the Equality and Diversity policy they link to, they list the correct protected characteristics on the last page, but elsewhere in the document they have 'gender' instead of 'sex'.

www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Equality-diversity-and-inclusion-policy.pdf

I thought there was a protected characteristic called “pregnancy and maternity”. Network rail have “pregnancy and maternity/paternity”

Then the sex protected characteristic is like this in the Act:
*In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;

(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.*

network rail have “sex: women, men and transgender people;”

Network Rail have little knowledge of customer requirements of any kind so their response does not surprise me.

Well done to the person who asked Network Rail the original questions. Whilst I am a man, I don't want women's spaces to be lost in reality or practice.

NR's response is evidence that their policy completely fails to protect the characteristic of "sex" - they have set about to protect the non EA protected "gender" at the expense of protecting sex.

The 2 - gender & sex - are in conflict.

Clearly NR don't have a fucking clue what they are doing.

I look forward to Whites reply very much.

Name changed.

I put in a request for FOI around the poster re:

*Numbers of people who complained
*what the decision making process was
*Advertising code of acceptance

I've had information back but I'm a little worried about sharing it online because of all the legal bumph at the end of the 3 documents.

EA huh? They haven’t read it have they? Must be being advised by someone...

the BBC are late in replying to a similar request!

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_impact_of_the_bbc_being_a_st?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow

@WaverleyStation

Name changed.

I put in a request for FOI around the poster re:

*Numbers of people who complained
*what the decision making process was
*Advertising code of acceptance

I've had information back but I'm a little worried about sharing it online because of all the legal bumph at the end of the 3 documents.

What does the legal stuff say? Is it like this? Screenshot from the end of the response to this request (taken from the whatdotheyknow.com site).

What an utterly crap response

OldCrone. Yes, exactly that.

WaverleyStation
I've had a look at some of their other responses on whatdotheyknow.com, and they seem to put that copyright clause on all of them. I would have thought putting the information on here is more like 'news reporting' than 'commercial publication', but I am not a lawyer and I have no idea how copyright law works, so I understand why you might be unsure whether you should put the information on here.

But if you'd made the request via whatdotheyknow they would have given the same response which would have gone straight to a public website.

I am wondering if it is false for NR/ Danielle Stratton to state that misgendering (sic) a 'Transexual' (description for Trans in the Act) with pronouns that correspond with their biological sex is a crime according to the EA2010. There would be a difference to stating they'd like people to mollycoddle someone's notions and be kind with saying it is breaking the law and therefore they have to stop or face penalty on that basis.

To me, that would mean if you simply see a bloke in front of you, you don't have be compelled to play a game and lie about it. Of course, many may deem it to be easier to go along with it. Maybe for self-preservation if you anticipate a backlash against your livelihood or personal safety. Coercion.

As far as I can see, the thing that shouldn't happen is a person who are privy to the personal information of someone with a Gender Reassignment characteristic (Transexuals' according to the Act) in an official capacity, shouldn't share that information and make it public, so to speak. If the source of their knowledge is private.

Please correct me if I am wrong about misgendering (sic) being a crime under the EA2010. If I am not, then these people are not just ignorant of the law, they are actively lying about it. To the public and to coerce their employees with falsehoods. If that is the case, I think that should be illegal!

Thanks @OldCrone I think you are right, it's definitely not for commercial reasons but for dissemination, which is similar to news reporting.

So I asked about numbers of people who complained
According to NR, they received 158 complaints as of 19 August. None of their complaints were through the official customer relations department and includes Twitter contact where Network Rail provided a response. It does not include all the Twitter converstions. I, obviously, did not make my request clear enough or maybe they are being obtuse - I wanted to know how many complaints they received before the poster was taken down. I will contact to ask them to clarify that question.

I also asked what the decision making process was to take the poster down

This was very interesting because there was a chain of emails, with the names and positions withheld. All emails sent on 28th July.

The first email is from the Times reporter who quotes Kelly-Jay talking about the ad in a video and wants to ask Scotrail if they have any comments and any complaints about the ad.

The second email is an internal one from a NR employee to 3 others talking about the Times Request. It has the subject line of JK Rowling / trans rights advertisement Waverley. They "dont think we want to be in this be in this debate". They are going to go back to the reporter and say there's been no public complaints and that they should contact JCDecaus about it. They ask the question if it need to ask JCD to kill it because it might breach their neutrality.

The third email says NR have a strict policy and "I guess this did't breach the policy? But dodgy ground nonetheless." It "might not strictly break the rules" and "could be seen as innocent support" but that "knowing the background its not wise." The email goes on to say that "its not our debate" and then it's a little bit about how this got through and what can be done about future ads.

The fourth email says "we don't want to look to be supporting anything either way". They've cc'ed someone who can advise whether it breaches their policy.

The final email (sounds like someone in charge!) says that they've just been made aware of the poster and to take . poster down. They've been made aware of the poster This email says because of the media debate surrounding JKR and her position on gender politics it breaches article 5 of the Code of Acceptance and it needs to be taken down.

I asked them about the Code of Acceptance policy for ads
Article 5 says: "It is of a political nature calling for the support of a particular viewpoint, policy or action or attacking a member or policies of any legislative, central or local government authority.

There you have it.

Sorry about repeated lines in one of the paragraphs, was juggling other things in between writing this and didn't proof read it properly.

Are Pride advertisements and Stonewall rainbows "of a political nature calling for the support of a particular viewpoint"?

If this debate has "sides" or "viewpoints" they are certainly making theirs clear.

@OhHolyJesus

Also, not political huh? From 2018.

Obvious question, sorry, but how do they consider the I❤️JKR poster be not their debate, but the one in the picture is their debate and they're happy for it to be displayed?

*this picture, on the right.

@OldCrone

WaverleyStation I've had a look at some of their other responses on whatdotheyknow.com, and they seem to put that copyright clause on all of them. I would have thought putting the information on here is more like 'news reporting' than 'commercial publication', but I am not a lawyer and I have no idea how copyright law works, so I understand why you might be unsure whether you should put the information on here.

But if you'd made the request via whatdotheyknow they would have given the same response which would have gone straight to a public website.

Perhaps WaverleyStation or a friend could put an identically worded FOI in. They already have a response, so it should be quick for them to turn it around.

Via Whatdoytheyknow! Duh, most important bit. 🤦‍♀️

boatyardblues I've written a summary in the thread after that post.