FPFW: ONS concede defeat!

[PandorasMailbox]

"We did it. We won. ONS have conceded defeat and will pay our legal costs.The High Court has now sealed the court order that sex in census cannot be self-identified.

Please share the news!"

fairplayforwomen.com/fair-play-for-women-wins-high-court-challenge-against-ons-census/?fbclid=IwAR0tJbErXe1wtBvuwZeNfyqs71OGlGvXQIoERD5FeBGyzoWmCz7DpkbXlT0

Fantastic news

Thank you Nic and congratulations

Fabulous News. Congratulations to FPFW for everything. I am so thankful.

oh look - the ONS lost a Sex Discrimination case - a female economist was denied a promotion which went to a lower qualified male.Several other women had sex based complaints but didn't have the right union membership.

Bad day at the office for the ONS?

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/female-economist-denied-promotion-wins-sex-discrimination-case#gref

Well done Nic - and thank you.
That's dynamite what you have gleaned about Stonewall's roll in imposing their preferred ideology - at Cabinet level as well.

Will there be a concerted campaign from women's organisations to expose this? Surely it's corruption?

In March 2021 a Freedom of Information request was made for any correspondence between ONS and Stonewall “relating to conditions the ONS was expected to fulfil, including policies the ONS was advised it was required to change, in order to meet any standards set by Stonewall”.

ONS, the public body we trust with data, has, it says, lost all correspondence due to “staff changes”.

Just wow!

This is such good news. Paper copy awaits!!

ONS, the public body we trust with data, has, it says, lost all correspondence due to “staff changes”.

Yet, I have full confidence that there will be back-ups somewhere because I'd anticipate the ONS has to have this for mandated audit trails for pretty much everything - in the same way as the finance industry does.

If they were to argue that it would be expensive and onerous to retrieve this from back-up, they'll have to do it at some point.

It just beggars belief doesn’t it.

Thank you so much FPFW, fantastic news!

Hard questions need to be asked about the wasting of public money by captured organisations promoting and defending this nonsense.

There are going to be constant "dog ate my homework" responses to perfectly legitimate FOI requests in future, I think. Needs a crackdown and reiteration that your public sector duty as a transparent body is to comply with these unless there is a damn good reason.

This is brilliant news - well done FPFW!

It says it all, doesn't it, that ONS weren't willing to defend at full judicial review? They knew this was wrong. Yet they've been so begrudging about acknowledging it.

It strengthens my hope that all the other examples of gender capture in institutions and policy will just come toppling down when they meet with judicial scrutiny.

So glad I was awake early enough to see your update on Facebook @DoctorW

This has been a ray of sunshine in an otherwise difficult week

Excellent work from Nic at FPFW. Shocking to read the link about Stonewall.

I heard this reported on the 2pm news bulletin on Radio 4, so all is not lost.

@HerewardTheWoke

This is brilliant news - well done FPFW!

It says it all, doesn't it, that ONS weren't willing to defend at full judicial review? They knew this was wrong. Yet they've been so begrudging about acknowledging it.

It strengthens my hope that all the other examples of gender capture in institutions and policy will just come toppling down when they meet with judicial scrutiny.

It doesn't follow that the part of the ONS that set the guidance and made the decisions knew it was wrong, actually. Departments can be pretty big. My reading is that one area set the guidance based on non-legal advice (ahem) and actioned the census, and then when the JR came up they took it to their lawyers and THEN realised they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Yes, a charitable view might be that they just didn't realise how easily a passport or driving licence can be changed.

But that still doesn't explain why they didn't change it straight away once it was pointed out, rather than going to court.

My reading is that one area set the guidance based on non-legal advice (ahem) and actioned the census, and then when the JR came up they took it to their lawyers and THEN realised they didn't have a leg to stand on.

I wonder how much of this is also age-related. Increasingly Zoom meetings and events are difficult to navigate. They started off with just the panel being pressured into including their pronouns in the chyron - and now they're "inviting" attendees to put their pronouns in their names in order to participate in the chat function etc. I notice that this is mostly young women announcing this 'invitation' so far.

I should think there is a fair amount of stealth capture by generation in play. Despite this, more senior personnel should be challenging incorrect procedures and guidance.

It all feels very Catch 22 and pledge of allegiance.

Apparently, 60% of companies who suffer data loss, close down within 6 months of the disaster and 72% who suffer extreme data loss, disappear within 24 months.
Anyone who is worked in finance or legal, will know that as well as digital backups, paper trails are also kept for auditing purposes.

www.workspace.co.uk/content-hub/technology/opinion-what-is-the-true-cost-of-lost-data-to-bus

Heard it on the news about an hour ago, saying Sex should be answered based on birth certificate.

Huge thanks to FPFW for taking this legal action.

Not just a victory in itself but sends a strong message.

TartrazineCustard

I don't think there's any reason to assume that reading. FPFW and other groups had been engaging ONS on this for a couple of years. The census team would have known this was a contentious interpretation of the question, particularly in the context of public debate on sex and gender. I would have expected them to ask for legal advice from their in-house team or from Government Legal. Departments do this all the time.

Guidance like this doesn't get finalised by a random team working in a silo. The final version, given the profile of the census, would have been signed off at high level, accompanied by a submission with advice detailing any potential legal or other issues/risks. That is just routine for advice in govt departments.

[quote DoctorW]Hi everyone - Nicola Williams from Fair Play For Women here. Thank you for all your lovely comments and your support. I know many of you here will have donated to our legal crowdfunder. So thank you!

Here's a peek behind the scenes at ONS showing how Stonewall squashed stakeholder debate and who supported them.

fairplayforwomen.com/whos-behind-the-government-losing-sight-of-reality/[/quote]
That is quite shocking to read.
Thank you for what you have done for women and girls.

Excellent news!!!! I hope other institutions start to apply the same rules such as the police in recording crimes, regarding the legal sex of both victim and perpetrator, and asking a separate question about gender identity.

That really is a shocking read @DoctorW. All these public bodies, paid for by tax payers, changing guidance and policies so that they no longer comply with the law

@DoctorW
You are amazing. I've been sharing this with all the fab women in my office today!

ONS, the public body we trust with data, has, it says, lost all correspondence due to “staff changes”.

I don't buy that for a second. This data or information wouldn't have been held by just one person in a personal folder or drive

The reply to the FOI is interesting (linked to in the FPFW article):

www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/onspaymentstoandcorrespondencewithstonewall

as is the link to the Legal Feminist article about Stonewall Champions:
legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/

If you haven't read them already, I would urge you to peruse them both - they make very interesting reading.