Stonewall hide organisations signed up as Diversity Champions

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

This morning Stonewall have hidden the list of all the organisations signed up to their diversity champions award behind a member's log in. Could this be connected to the Essex University report confirming that they have been offering wrong advice about the law to organisations? Are companies getting cold feet about being openly connected to them?

Recommendation from the Essex Uni report:
The University should give careful and thorough consideration to the relative benefits and disbenefits of its relationship with Stonewall, bearing in mind the issues raised in this report. In particular, it should consider that this relationship appears to have given University members the impression that gender critical academics can legitimately be excluded from the institution.

It's very convenient that publicly funded organisations can refuse the release of information about where public money is being spent and on what for "commercial reasons". Stonewall is a charity benefiting from the lower tax rate and "gift aid" etc, not a privately owned company.

Is it a business, a charity or a lobby group?

I believe Ereshkigalangcleg Stonewall are whatever they self identify as

Glad the times picked up on the stonewall angle. Their excuse seems weird, which high court case backs them up? Unless I have missed something somewhere, I cannot imagine the high court getting the law so clearly..wrong? I mean I guess it could happen, but there would have been some degree of fuss made surely..
Whats going on with Allison Baileys case? If thats due soon..is going to be a bumpy few months at least for stonewall. I wonder if they can 'thasts transphobic!' 'X agrees with us!!!' their way out of this, as logic wuld say no, but the climate of fear is STRONG. It may take a while, but I do think eventually the support will take a domino effect fall. Just, who is the bravest to go first..as they WILL be decried as homophobic, despite stonewall law/policies/etc being the most homophobic thing I have seen in my lifetime. Same old homophbia, but repackaged in bright sparkly bubblewrap, brought in on a shiney unicorn surrounded by puppies with a fanfare and much talk about how same sex attarcted people really really need stonewalls support at a time when homphobia is so rife, ignoring that the homophobia, is driven by fucking stonewall in many cases

I'm very concerned to see today that my university has signed up to the Diversity Champions Programme. I suspect training in being woke will be heading my way very soon.

@FannyCann

Interesting, I wonder if that is why so many of the FOIs weren't answered, using exactly the same wording about commercially sensitive or something....

Funny. I was looking at the response from the Nursing and Midwifery Council and they cited commercial sensitivity....

[[https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information]]abouttyourdealingss274?nocache=incoming-1789448#incoming-1789448

This is their reason for not disclosing what they put on their Stonewall submission (my bold).

In relation to parts 1 and 2 of your request, we do not have a full submission available because any answers we give are uploaded directly on Stonewall’s platform. We type in answers to questions and for some questions we upload ‘evidence’, i.e screenshots etc. We have a spreadsheet which we used to organise our response and a folder which contains some of the evidence we used but the issue with this is that it follows a set pattern of questions asked by Stonewall and disclosing this (including the feedback we received in return) would prejudice the commercial interests of Stonewall as disclosure would undermine confidence in the Workplace Equality Index (WEI) and could give other organisations entering the WEI an advantage/benchmark to work from. As Stonewall charge for their services, it could also result in any competitors/potential competitors being able to template their services based on what Stonewall’s approach is (questions asked and feedback given etc). Furthermore, as the NMC wish to continue working with Stonewall, it would also prejudice our own commercial interests by releasing these details into the public domain as Stonewall may not have confidence in our commercial relationship if we started to share such information. Under the FOI Act, section 43(2) states that information which, if released, would prejudice the commercial interests of any party can be exempt if the public interest in favour of withholding the information outweighs the interest in disclosing.

There are a couple of things which stand out for me in the part I have highlighted.

What is the purpose of the WEI? Isn't it all about showing that a workplace is a good employer for those with the protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act? Why the concern about other workplaces having an 'advantage' to work from. Surely other workplaces having good practices around employment of LGBT people is a good thing, isn't it? And if all employers can gain this 'advantage', so that they can all improve their workplaces for their LGBT employees, standards will generally improve, and that's better for everyone.

This makes it look as though it's not about supporting equality at all, but is purely about competition to be at the top of the WEI. The main aim (improving workplaces for those who are LGBT) seems to have been lost here in a sea of commercial interests and competition with other employers.

And why is Stonewall, which is a charity funded largely by public money, so concerned about their 'commercial interests'?

I suppose stonewall will be currently taking the time to thoroughly check their materials for other possible 'misunderstandings' of the law, and contacting companies and such to let them know that the 'mistakes' are there and new materials used, new understandings had, maybe new training needed based on this, which I assume they shall provide free of charge, given it it their 'error'. Maybe they will even post a public apology, as its a very serious situation and they could have all those people who pay them for their names printed online..in a hell of a lot of trouble.

I don't actually get how they ca use the 'misunderstanding of the law' thing when it comes to the likes of single sex spaces. They did NOT misunderstand and surely noone reasonable would ever find that they did, given they actively campaigned for the removal of the exemptions. The same exemptions they knew were not removed, as they huffed about it a lot, but then suddely, they forgot they wanted that and that it didnt happen, and instead started thinking it DID indeed happen and now the law was what they wanted in the first place? Not likely..

Why the concern about other workplaces having an 'advantage' to work from. Surely other workplaces having good practices around employment of LGBT people is a good thing, isn't it?

Yes thats a VERY interesting point there. It would be good allround if more workplaces learnt from 'the best' if it was actually about being the most supportive place for people with various characteristics, etc. Its not some kind of secret competition, where those at the very top get a prize, and they must guard their inclusiveness well else thers learn to be as inclusive as that just ruins it all. I wonder if stonewall advised others to reply in such a way..

@HeadIsFucked

Why the concern about other workplaces having an 'advantage' to work from. Surely other workplaces having good practices around employment of LGBT people is a good thing, isn't it?

Yes thats a VERY interesting point there. It would be good allround if more workplaces learnt from 'the best' if it was actually about being the most supportive place for people with various characteristics, etc. Its not some kind of secret competition, where those at the very top get a prize, and they must guard their inclusiveness well else thers learn to be as inclusive as that just ruins it all. I wonder if stonewall advised others to reply in such a way..

Yes, that reply from NMC is ludicrous. Is there any way to challenge those types of responses to FOIs? I'm quite new to all this and know very little about the FOI process.

@EmpressWitchDoesntBurn

Nancy Kelley’s been tweeting about how many FOIs Stonewall have to deal with, except that as a non-public organisation they’re not subject to FOIs.

Which begs the question of whose FOIs they’re actually dealing with.

I just had a look for this on twitter (she was replying to the fox killer).

SolidarityJo. At Stonewall we have to expend huge amounts of time on a never ending round of complaints, FOIs, and round robin letters that at best wildly misrepresent our work. It won't stop us working for a world where LGBTQ+ people everywhere are free

twitter.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1394964853891158022

And one of the replies:

Their Diversity Champions are calling on them now they realise that Stonewall have deliberately misled them on Equality Law, they're also nervous about the child scandal of Transition kids that's brewing. All this on top of the realisation that Stonewall led lDE excludes LGB!

twitter.com/mc_simmy/status/1395265229857112065

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I think often charities do have 'commercial interests' in that they have some commercial activities which cross-subsidise their charitable activities (eg. I once worked for a small charity in local regeneration: some of the charity's funding was from central/local government, some was from the PCT, and some came from a rental portfolio).

It's a while since I had anything to do with the WEI (I was loosely involved in compiling our return, as an organisation which was not a 'Champion'), but my vague recollection is that paid-up Champions received a greater degree of advice and feedback on their WEI return, compared with those such as ours who just did the WEI. As such, I can imagine that there is a sensitivity around disclosing this feedback, as it is something Champions effectively pay for. OTOH, 'advice we've paid for' isn't ordinarily exempted from FOI.

Maybe someone can correct me on this feedback being a commercial thing anyway. Its very possible I was misinformed about the WEI perks of Champions!

Is there any way to challenge those types of responses to FOIs? I'm quite new to all this and know very little about the FOI process.

It is possible for the person who made the request to challenge the response, first by asking for it to be reviewed internally, then, if they are still unhappy with the response, to go to the Information Commissioner.

Anyone can view the correspondence, but only the person who made the original request can follow this up. Anyone else would have to start from scratch with a new request.

This has some suggestions:

www.mysociety.org/2018/10/05/my-foi-requests-been-refused-so-what-now/

www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/if-your-request-is-turned-down

www.foi.directory/what-is-foi/how-to-complain-about-an-foi-request/

A guide to the "commercial interests" exemption.

ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi-guidance/section-43-commercial-interests/

One more link about following up on a FOI request.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/unhappy

The internal review can be done on the What Do They Know site if that's where you made your original request, and it means any replies will also appear on the site.

Referral to the Information Commissioner has to be done directly. It will be published on their site when the process is complete, but won't be automatically linked to the original request on What Do They Know.

Given that Stonewall are a little out of kilter with the Law, I assume any complaints about FOI requests will take them by surprise

At Stonewall we have to expend huge amounts of time on a never ending round of complaints, FOIs, and round robin letters that at best wildly misrepresent our work.

Oh the irony.

At best wildly represent our work and at worst are completely accurate?

At best wildly misrepresent our work, at worst are totally accurate?

Absolutely. And given they misrepresent the law to so many companies and encourage a climate in which women have to carefully choose and account for every word they speak and write and still have their words twisted by Stonewall and so many in the media, it’s a bit fucking rich.

At best wildly misrepresent our work, at worst are totally accurate?

The Times education editor, in the article linked to above states
"Stonewall provides expert advice to hundreds of organisations, including employers, schools, universities and police forces, through its “diversity champions” programme."

I'd very much like to know her reason for attributing expert status to Stonewall's advice. Doesn't she know that the expert body is the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

Interesting to note the same article quotes Stonewall stating that it gets its legal advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and that it has been upheld in court.

By the way who do you think is a member of Stonewall's list? The Equality and Human Rights Commission.

And so is ACAS, the official body for improving and disseminating standards of practice and procedures in the workplace, providing employment advice to individuals and organisations, writing and upholding codes of practice and resolving disputes.

Sign up to Stonewall.

Discretion assured.