I'm pretty angry, this is so bloody disrespectful...i'll copy/paste the correspondence here.
Is it me?? Should I just calm down?? I'm just sick of having to fight tooth and nail all the time.
This is my original letter to Andrew Haines.
Dear Sir Andrew,
I have been engaged with the Freedom of Information team regarding the above matter and my most recent letter was correctly responded to, as it didn’t contain a specific FoI request.
For your convenience, I have copied/pasted the letter here and I would be much obliged if you address these very serious concerns.
Dear Ms Begum,
Reference number: FOI2020/00750
Many thanks indeed for your comprehensive response, I’m much obliged. However, I must write to you again, as I now have further questions.
As of today’s date on the ‘What Do They Know’ website, there are approximately 200 requests to various organisations across the country, asking for the same information regarding their involvement with Stonewall. I hope this fact gives you pause for thought.
Indeed, I have already seen another request written to you, similar to my own and I daresay these won’t be isolated examples, due to the controversy at Waverley Station, at the weekend.
However, I digress, so please allow me to return to the original matter, because I must highlight some of Stonewall’s unsavoury practices. It is no longer the benevolent charity it used to be; indeed, two of the original founding members have completely distanced themselves from it, in order to create a new organisation (LGB Alliance), that is more in line with their values as gay men.
Last year Simon Fanshawe said:
‘The government continues to treat Stonewall as if it represented the views of progressive thinking in general, and specifically LGB opinion. It does not.’
And Fred Sargeant, has also made similar comments in the media, and has wholly endorsed this Twitter ‘thread’ in February this year.
https://twitter.com/sarahstuartxx/status...._
Stonewall wilfully misrepresents the Equality Act and deliberately ignores ‘sex’ as one of the ‘protected characteristics’, in favour of ‘gender identity’, which isn’t listed in the Act. It is only ‘gender re-assignment’ that is a protected characteristic, so it is highly disingenuous of them to advise this as though it is entrenched in law, when it is quite the contrary.
Indeed their ‘Trans Inclusion Toolkits’ for schools have recently been revoked by a large amount of local authorities. Baroness Nicholson has been instrumental in corresponding with the Secretary of State for Education to enable this policy change. Her Ladyship said ‘Stonewall…decide what the facts are, and appear to have abused this opening to…the point of being corrupt and corrupting’
https://www.womenarehuman.com/house-of-l...._
Family Law Barrister Sarah Phillimore of Fair Cop said, ‘Trans lobby groups have grown accustomed to shaping public policy and guidance free from public scrutiny’ and described Stonewall as having a ‘dangerous monopoly’.
https://www.faircop.org.uk/cps-withdraws...._
So, I’m sure you can see why I’m extremely disappointed to hear that you look to Stonewall for ‘guidance on policies and training resources’, as it’s apparent that they deliberately obfuscate the law.
It makes me question whether anyone at Network Rail has read Stonewall’s literature on these issues, as you seem to have simply taken them at their word, with no due diligence carried out.
I sincerely hope you take my concerns seriously, because a ‘copy/paste’ response from you would suggest otherwise. I have provided evidence from reputable sources which I trust you’ll take on board.
Thank you for your time.