#DontSubmitToStonewall - suggested quick action by Legal Feminist

[stumbledin]

(From twitter post)

A follow up on the Stonewall long read: this one is a very short call for a simple (2-3 minute) action.

Please share widely. #DontSubmitToStonewall twitter.com/hashtag/DontSubmitToStonewall?src=hashtag_click

Please share and submit a request or two. Whatdotheyknow.com makes it very straightforward. If you don't dare ask your own public authority employer, maybe swap with a friend.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/04/shining-a-light-on-stonewalls-activities/?_thumbnail_id=451

public bodies can get an exemption from a vexatious requests, which this isn't. wonder from the ICO will do...

This is quantifiable money! Our money! Tax payers money that is not going into how to resolve the pay gap, or the lack of women's toilets, or why there are so many black mothers loosing their lives giving birth, or indeed on funding trans refuges or prison wings.
It is a haemorrhage of those paving stones that take you to hell!

Oh my!

That's why they have hidden the list of sponsors, so we cannot add it all up.

@FindTheTruth

New Legal Feminist Thread on Stonewall FOIAs:

This FOI response from
@NHSBSA
to a #DontSubmitToStonewall request makes surprising reading: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/725207/response/1763098/attach/5/No%20Disclosure.pdf

Another body that appears not to understand that the risk of reputational damage when your activities come to light is much of the point of the Freedom of Information Act.

Or that FOIA is "purpose blind": if you ask a public authority for information, and none of the exemptions applies, they have to provide it. It doesn't matter why you want it.

The
@nhsbsa
makes the same mistake again at ¶2 of their response:

At ¶3, the writer borrows a concept ("fishing") from disclosure in litigation - to which very different principles apply.

He also complains that the request doesn't describe the information sought, which is odd because many other public authorities have had no difficulty comprehending identically-worded requests, and responding fully.

Then at ¶4 he complains that the request is not in the spirit of FOI.

This calls to mind the attempt by the hapless lawyer in the Australian film 'The Castle' to rely on "the vibe" of the Australian constitution;

Finally, the writer says the information is of little or no value to the public.

If
@nhsbsa
had thought of an arguable exemption to rely on, there might be a balancing exercise to which public interest could be relevant. But "the information you're asking for is boring and unimportant" is not in general an answer to a FOI request.

As so often: the information itself may not be terribly interesting. What draws the eye is the attempt to hide it. End/

2nd FOI needed to ask if SW drafted their response the first FOI. Legal minds saying the NHSBSA response is garbage

I've come late to the party but is it really over 1,000 Stonewall FOI requests????

I see 790 on the search function for

Dontsubmittostonewall

And one with the apostrophe

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dontsubmittostonewall_4

Could be my search text though!

Ah yes. I just searched Stonewall not the hashtag.

But there are now 800 #dontsubmittostomewall

What I really don't understand is how some Authorities get away with declining! When a similar body in a different area is very open.

What the hell are they hiding???

Why has this not been picked up by a national newspaper?

I think they know which loopholes to exploit. For example:

'under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ... disclosure would to prejudice the commercial interests of the university. As section 43 is a qualified exemption, we have conducted a Public Interest Test to determine where the public interest lies. Although we acknowledge the general public interest in transparency and providing a full picture, to release this data would prejudice the university's ability to obtain value for money from a paid-for service. The university has therefore concluded that the public interest is best served by withholding this information under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.'

What I really don't understand is how some Authorities get away with declining

there's been at least one email from Stonewall to an authority stating that the FOI disclosure could cause "reputational damage".

Who knows? there may be more than one authority diversity champion being told by Stonewall that FOI disclosure could cause "reputational damage".

Nancy Kelley CEO Stonewall says she's spending huge amounts of time on the public bodies FOIs.

Is Nancy/Stonewall vetting the FOIs? writing FOI replies? telling the public bodies that answering the FOI could cause "reputational damage"?

Although we acknowledge the general public interest in transparency and providing a full picture, to release this data would prejudice the university's ability to obtain value for money from a paid-for service.

Does this mean “We know accountability to the public is important, but if we go against Stonewall, they will no longer work with us in a way that will give us value for money”?

Seems a very odd statement, but perhaps someone can suggest a more innocent explanation of what it means.

there's been at least one email from Stonewall to an authority stating that the FOI disclosure could cause "reputational damage".

Wow. And why would that be Stonewall?

Interesting to see the reply to this!!!!

• Dear Lancaster University, This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Please provide any information that you hold answering to any of the following descriptions: Any correspondence between Lancaster University and Stonewall in 2021 relating to the formulation of a response to the Freedom of Information request that was submitted to Lancaster University on 4th February 2021.*

That is interesting Brizzle. Brilliant.

@AnyOldPrion

Although we acknowledge the general public interest in transparency and providing a full picture, to release this data would prejudice the university's ability to obtain value for money from a paid-for service.

Does this mean “We know accountability to the public is important, but if we go against Stonewall, they will no longer work with us in a way that will give us value for money”?

Seems a very odd statement, but perhaps someone can suggest a more innocent explanation of what it means.

I honestly don't know.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/725256/response/1775334/attach/html/3/FOI%20U.Winfield.pdf.html]

This one makes no sense.
Reply: we do not have dealings with Stonewall.
Meanwhile, a stonewall logo at bottom of the letter.

This medium article is about the FOI's from a TRA point of view. I do not endorse the opinions in this article obviously, but thought some of you might like to read how 'the other side' see it. It's an archived link not to give them the clicks.
archive.is/jSVsD

[quote Mollyollydolly]This medium article is about the FOI's from a TRA point of view. I do not endorse the opinions in this article obviously, but thought some of you might like to read how 'the other side' see it. It's an archived link not to give them the clicks.
archive.is/jSVsD[/quote]
Because co-ordinated political and legal action to remove women’s sex-based rights, kept carefully under the radar as outlined in the Denton’s document, is all fine and above board.

But a co-ordinated, open attempt by women to gain information on one of the charities that is almost certainly behind part of the aforementioned campaign is a transphobic attack and so unfair!

Yeah transphobes, it's all your fault that the L, B and G are forgotten about, SW are just too busy dealing with the transphobic FOI requests.

It's extraordinary isn't it. Rattled though.

On whey Stonewall might be involved in an FOI request a University receives if S has a contract with the University it is common to include a clause that if the University receives a FOI request regarding the other party (Stonewall) here the other party is notified and allowed to be consulted. i have put that into contracts many times. So that if the FOI might result in information that is not allowed by law to be disclosed such as confidential information being disclosed there is time to know about it and if necessary apply to the court to stop it.

However reputational damage is not a ground as far as I remember to stop an FOI request. If that were so an MP who has had a backhander in return for putting a university contract the way of his wife's company could argue no disclosure!

didn't know about the contract clause that the other party be notified about FOIs, Xenia, thank you.

Do FOIs need updated guidance, given the copy and paste responses and responses that misinterpret the law.

I missed this thread when it was started but have just read this one posted upthread and

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_your_dealings_495#outgoing-1117785

The final response from J. Whitby-Fretwell is superb

Hehehe I laughed out loud. Not sure why it tickled me.

Looking at the responses to the requests, it seems clear that Stonewall has been driving this whole thing.

The feedback form in the last one - haven’t read it all, but it tells the org to remove references to ‘mother’ in the policy. Shocking.