Organisations Leaving Stonewall: The List

[Barracker]

Thought it would be handy to keep a running list here of organisations who have done 'budget reviews' or similar and have subsequently decided that Stonewall are 'not value for money'.

EHRC
ACAS
House of Commons
DVLA
Dorset Police
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Do feel free to update the thread as more join the exodus.

Eyes opening That sounds just like a pyramid scheme....

*Yes this was the Anne Siddot case - it's against the EA 2010 to exclude trans people from toilets, as gender identity is a protected characteristic.

*Sinnott

And everything else you've said is completely wrong:

The EA makes provision for single sex exemptions - the Sinnott case clarified that a GRC makes no difference here. Services can exclude people on the basis of sex when it's 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

'The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010'

'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

'Gender reassignment' is a protected characteristic.

'Sex' is a protected characteristic.

HTH.

'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic.

Despite Stonewall’s insinuations today.

For employers who wish to go above and beyond the law in creating inclusive workplaces, we suggest that internal policies could refer to ‘gender identity’ as a term that more clearly includes all trans, non-binary and gender diverse people.

Yeah, let’s just encourage employers to misrepresent the actual law.

@TRHR

Yes this was the Anne Siddot case - it's against the EA 2010 to exclude trans people from toilets, as gender identity is a protected characteristic.

Oh no it isn't!

Go and read the Equality Act 2010.

@Paralithic

Sarah Phillimore has, erm, demolished this statement.

twitter.com/svphillimore/status/1401980812111798286?s=21

If you’re not on Twitter:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1401980812111798286.html

It is a thing of beauty.

It really is a thing of beauty. Very much worth reading.

I note that Stonewall's reciting of the equality act somehow missed out the bit about single sex exemptions...

Exceptions - exemptions would suggest a need to apply for them.

Can anybody explain this paragraph or give an example of cases being thrown out as unarguable, please?

I think there are only two, both about guidance documents. Ann Sinnott, and a 14 year old girl bringing a judicial review against the CPS for Stonewall's influence in their school hate crime guidance. These were hypothetical harms, and it was acknowledged that in cases where am actual person had been harmed it might have been different. "Case after case", while technically applicable to two cases, is arguably a tad misleading.

Note that the CPS had already withdrawn their contested guidance (and haven't reinstated it) and the EHRC has also changed theirs. So arguably no need for court intervention, from the perspective of the judge.

I have been away from MN for awhile but would like to add to the list.

According to the Telegraph, University College London and the University of Winchester both revealed in FOI requests that they had chosen not to continue the Diversity Champions programme last year.

The same article says, "Oxford professor Michael Biggs wrote to his vice-chancellor, Louise Richardson, warning her that the university's membership could put it in breach of laws governing equality and freedom of speech."

His letter doesn't mince words. He said the university "should not submit to an unelected organisation which campaigns for a particular political agenda, which provides misleading information of the law" and that whilst "universities have escaped judicial challenge until now", an independent report for the University of Essex, which found Stonewall had misrepresented the law, should provide a warning.

"Citing the Education Act, which protects free speech, and the Equality Act, Prof Biggs said: "Submission to Stonewall is not compatible with the university's obligation to uphold the law"."

I think there are only two… "Case after case", while technically applicable to two cases, is arguably a tad misleading.

Thank you. I misconstrued "case after case" as relating to the FOIAs.

Interesting claim from a Twitter account that this email criticising Sex Matters' letter and FOIA responses has garnered "lovely responses" from some Uni Vice Chancellors they've emailed (100+):

twitter.com/SomeOther_Guy/status/1402335925955399687

I'd genuinely like to see those responses to that email - other matters aside, it would be useful to see:
on what grounds the Uni Vice Chancellors agree with the characterisation and assertions in that email;
if there's a marked difference to the tone adopted in responses to those who contact institutions asking them to consider the letter.

As an addendum - here is the tweeter's annotated version of the Sex Matters' letter (3 images):

twitter.com/SomeOther_Guy/status/1402333585328246787

Also explains colour coding: Red is the tweeter's; black is the original SM letter and blue indicates hyperlinks.

There doesn't appear to be a mechanism to click on the hyper links? So one can't check their veracity.

@Datun

There doesn't appear to be a mechanism to click on the hyper links? So one can't check their veracity.

Image of an image - I should think that the hyperlinks worked in the sender's original although I'd be surprised if any of the VCs worked their way through them. The resolution is better at the original image link:

twitter.com/SomeOther_Guy/status/1402333585328246787/photo/3

Gwent police confirm that they haven’t been in the scheme for quite a few years.

Not that's exactly specific, is it? 'Quite a few years'.

@TedsFederationRep

I have been away from MN for awhile but would like to add to the list.

According to the Telegraph, University College London and the University of Winchester both revealed in FOI requests that they had chosen not to continue the Diversity Champions programme last year.

The same article says, "Oxford professor Michael Biggs wrote to his vice-chancellor, Louise Richardson, warning her that the university's membership could put it in breach of laws governing equality and freedom of speech."

His letter doesn't mince words. He said the university "should not submit to an unelected organisation which campaigns for a particular political agenda, which provides misleading information of the law" and that whilst "universities have escaped judicial challenge until now", an independent report for the University of Essex, which found Stonewall had misrepresented the law, should provide a warning.

"Citing the Education Act, which protects free speech, and the Equality Act, Prof Biggs said: "Submission to Stonewall is not compatible with the university's obligation to uphold the law"."

I understand that Winchester are in the process of renewing their status.

@SpindleWhorl that’s taken from the response on what do they know that I screenshot.
I agree it’s a bit disingenuous but I would assume it’s at least 2 years. I suppose a follow up FOI could be put in to ask the specifics but at least we know they aren’t part of the scheme which has to be a good thing.

I don't understand this - some organisations are saying in their FOI answers that they are not members or not reapplying but then it turns out they are. Are they lying? Are they being 'economical with the truth'? Maybe more FOIs to see if stonewall influenced their FOI responses in the first place?

Are they being 'economical with the truth'?

I suspect this^ I have seen FOIs where orgs were asked about an application to the scheme and the org says they have never applied to the scheme, which is technically true because you just pay Stonewall the money, there is no application process.

If organisations are being economical with the truth, then it says an awful lot about their relationship with SW and just adds to calls for a public enquiry

I have seen FOIs where orgs were asked about an application to the scheme and the org says they have never applied to the scheme, which is technically true because you just pay Stonewall the money, there is no application process.

Exactly. Pg 9 or thereabouts where I go through FOIs individually and then list the ones who may have left - I comment several times about the wording. And it's plain that some of the responders say that they did not apply based on the fact that they're in the final year of a 3 year membership so this is technically true but not in the spirit (so to speak). And then they're less than transparent about communication and other items.

If anyone can doublecheck the pg 9 list (I gave links) then it might be helpful to verify it before passing on to Sex Matters.

Barclays Bank is still proud of being a Stonewall Top 100 Employer

www.barclays.co.uk/diversity/

[quote KeepingTheWormsQuiet]Barclays Bank is still proud of being a Stonewall Top 100 Employer

www.barclays.co.uk/diversity/[/quote]
Those of us old enough to remember Apartheid are not surprised by this

mobile.twitter.com/levipay/status/1403313769376276484

Cooperative bank gone?