EHRC cuts ties with Stonewall.

[Novina]

Has anyone else seen this? From Sex Matters:

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/press-release-equality-and-human-rights-commission-cuts-ties-with-stonewall

Tibtom those words and woman are writ large into law and given the kickback those trying to eliminate the words were given recently in the HoL I wonder what strategies they will try next. Using the EHRC logo is a bit of a bad move, so if all they've got is more lies and obfuscation, they are definitely losing

The final straw for me was Stonewall making my employer delete the words woman and mother from the maternity policy

That is repulsive. I'd think an easy job for the advisors though if this is what they do
.
Step 1: Receive considerable membership money from companies to ensure they are inclusive
Step 2: Advisor looks through company policies and documents. Asks them to erase the word woman and anything pertaining to actual womanhood. Make sure the word woman includes men.
Step 3: Switch focus to facilitates such as toilets. Make sure women's toilets are inclusive to men.
Step 4: Provide company with a shiny inclusiveness certificate.
Step 5: Come back next year. Check company is still inclusive for men and not for women. Collect membership money.
Repeat.

It's certainly not that simple for the organisation Erikrie

If you look through this FOI you will see that Brighton and Sussex hospitals trust supplies a staggering amount of documentation.

"Regarding questions 1 & 2 of your request, it is estimated that the
submission for the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index 2020 (submitted
September 2019) and feedback documentation comprises 50+ pieces of
information, totalling over 1,400 pages."

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/informationabouttyourdealingss485#incoming-1735427

The final straw for me was Stonewall making my employer delete the words woman and mother from the maternity policy.

On another thread they are quoting as saying that they "have no sway over organisational decision making", when trying to avoid the charge that they were responsible for the Essex University debacle.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The final straw for me was Stonewall making my employer delete the words woman and mother from the maternity policy.

On another thread they are quoting as saying that they "have no sway over organisational decision making", when trying to avoid the charge that they were responsible for the Essex University debacle.

Tell that to Allison Bailey!

I imagine it's an attempt to deflect that too. Getting it in now.

*If you look through this FOI you will see that Brighton and Sussex hospitals trust supplies a staggering amount of documentation.

"Regarding questions 1 & 2 of your request, it is estimated that the
submission for the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index 2020 (submitted
September 2019) and feedback documentation comprises 50+ pieces of
information, totalling over 1,400 pages."*

Omg

"Regarding questions 1 & 2 of your request, it is estimated that the submission for the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index 2020 (submitted September 2019) and feedback documentation comprises 50+ pieces of information, totalling over 1,400 pages."

Jesus. They really have infiltrated some of these organisations.😲 That's absolutely shocking.

I saw on Twitter that there have been complaints to whatdotheyknow.com about Legal Feminist's FOI campaign. And the complaints were rejected

twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1397181707569274880?s=20

I saw on Twitter that there have been complaints to whatdotheyknow.com about Legal Feminist's FOI campaign. And the complaints were rejected

😂 What a shame.

[quote EmpressWitchDoesntBurn]I saw on Twitter that there have been complaints to whatdotheyknow.com about Legal Feminist's FOI campaign. And the complaints were rejected

twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1397181707569274880?s=20[/quote]
Love it, thank you for sharing this.

They may have rejected the complaint but have removed the hashtag DontSubmitToStonewall. Which is fair enough I suppose. At least the enquires are still there.

Interesting. Searching for DontSubmitToStonewall on the WhatdotheyKnow website brings up the requests that include that hashtag but it has been removed. Oh well. It was there for a while and you can still search it apparently, not sure how that works but I'm not an IT wizard!

“Extraneous material removed”

You can search using the phrase above, using the inverted commas.

Good work and intel @BrizzleGirl, thanks!

another article
unherd.com/2021/05/how-stonewall-sacrificed-gay-rights/

"in recent days, one of its founders, Matthew Parris, publicly urged Stonewall to stay out of the trans wars, while the Equality and Human Rights Commission announced that it would not be renewing its membership."

"And quite right, too. No taxpayer-funded entity should be funnelling money to Stonewall. And private companies who continue to do so should be made aware that they are supporting a group which has stopped looking out for gay people and started hounding them in their workplaces instead."

Better late than never. The EHRC should have cut ties with Stonewall the moment Stonewall admitted it wanted Sex dropped from the Equality Act as a protected characteristic.

You can read the full statement from WhatDoTheyKnow here.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/blog

They explain why the hashtag was removed.

Considering the request titles, we determined that the inclusion of a campaign hashtag in the title is extraneous to the purpose of requesting information from public bodies and at odds with the sufficiently focused nature of the requests – seeking to bring pressure on public authorities rather than simply focusing on the requirements of a clear request for information.

For the reasons listed above, we have determined that these requests can remain on the site; however, we have removed the extraneous campaign hashtag from the title of each request.

The hashtag also served another purpose - the easy identification of public services who had already had an foi submitted to prevent duplication and thus demonstrating the fact it wasn't about putting pressure on public organisations generally but rather about their relationship with a political lobby group.

Should have put another full stop in there somewhere...

The Downfall of Stonewall ..
www.captiongenerator.com/2246061/The-Downfall-of-Stonewall#.YK_bg_j1mb0.twitter

Now ACAS too according to The Times

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-suffers-fresh-setback-in-trans-advice-row-j3p79gb2k

Wooo hoooo "cost reasons" indeed :)

Hopefully it's going to be like dominos!!

Once the high profile public bodies start fleeing the ship private ones will also follow. Leaving for cost reasons is, as someone previously said, a good way of phrasing it for publicly funded bodies as it will make it seem like they are being careful with tax payers money. It also piles pressure on those publicly funded institutions that remain members as tax payers will turn the focus on them and when they inevitably ask for more money from the Government or complain they don't have enough they will face the backlash of "why are you wasting our money on that?" It will only take a couple of journalists to put it out there just how much time and money is spent on being part of the scheme and it will get very messy very quickly. The mass of paperwork and hours spent by Brighton and Sussex NHS will be incredibly difficult to justify to patients.