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.

That ACAS is signed up is shocking.

@Triphazards

Sign up to Stonewall.

Discretion assured.

But watch out because if you fail to do as instructed there will be 'reputational damage'

How can it be right that EHRC advise Stonewall who advise EHRC?

This thread from Legal Feminist is good. I fear Nancy has assured lots more FOI requests coming their way.
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1395376169374162957

[quote Mollyollydolly]This thread from Legal Feminist is good. I fear Nancy has assured lots more FOI requests coming their way.
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1395376169374162957[/quote]
"We have determined that this information isn't in the public interest because too many members of the public are interested in it."

That ought to go well for them.

[quote Mollyollydolly]This thread from Legal Feminist is good. I fear Nancy has assured lots more FOI requests coming their way.
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1395376169374162957[/quote]
Well that is interesting...

Is there such a thing as vexatious FOI requests I wonder? That response sounds very much like it was written in conjunction with Stonewall

Is there such a thing as vexatious FOI requests I wonder?

There is. This is the ICO's document on 'Dealing with vexatious requests'.

ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf

Apologies, I've not read the full thread, but I wonder if private eye might pick this up...

Is there such a thing as vexatious FOI requests I wonder?
For a short while (on secondment) I sat next to the FOI person at my hospital. I think they fall mainly into three or four categories: genuinely seeking information about something eg post op infection rates, journalists and similar fishing - probably the most annoying to deal with as they will be a very wide ranging question, or with several sub questions attached, and those who might have an axe to grind (or be vexatious) or just be a bit bonkers eg how many ghosts does your hospital have?

how many ghosts does your hospital have?
At least that would give some light relief for the FOI person composing the response. “I am very sorry, but the trust does not maintain records of any non-corporeal spirit population that may frequent our premises”.

"We have determined that this information isn't in the public interest because too many members of the public are interested in it."

Well it clearly is in the public interest then isn't it. Best get busy stonewall. As answers are required.

Now I want to know how many ghosts our local hospital have...

"We have determined that this information isn't in the public interest because too many members of the public are interested in it."

Interesting., and yeah it reads that way to me too tbh. Meanwhile, it seems Sussex police are taking time to 'assess the public interest in regards to this disclosure'

FOI is not something I know anything about, but is that kind of reply usual? Where you just get 'I disagree with your reasons for asking, and think you are doing it for X and you are just a nasty pasty so nahhhh'?!

Stonewall is clearly involved in the replies here.