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.

*oops, that was mean to say sticker club!

My company (financial services) is on that archived list, but last week the D&I committee decided not to renew as the cost had gone up and they didn't think it was 'cost effective at this time'... It's coming off the website this week, and I suspect they won't be the only ones. I had my email to the committee drafted and everything! I may tweak it and send it to my daughter's school

I believe the term ahead of the law means something is in breach of the law.

If I was arrested for possession of drugs, could I argue that I am just getting ahead of the law (because in years to come my cocaine might be legalised

@Datun

It's the paying every year that looks so dodgy.

A one off fee to get all the info is one thing. But every year in order to maintain membership of the sucker club?

Doesn't look good.

Yes, I was wondering if they offered anything new each year and if so what would that be, or is just paying to be able to have the SW logo on your company website and paperwork

Yes, I was wondering if they offered anything new each year and if so what would that

Isn't it that every year Stonewall helps company to try and move up the Workplace Equality Index?

@Datun

*oops, that was mean to say sticker club!

Either way works.

It would be interesting to know how much it does cost companies - not the yearly fee but the time it takes to comply with the processes and paperwork. Is it 3 hours of somebody's time once a year? 3 days, 3 weeks? What is the real cost. And what is the real benefit.
The £2500 fee is nothing to big financial organisations.

Though the 'not cost effective at this time' excuse reads to me to be just code for 'this scheme is such a ball ache and we are glad to be out of it'

it still makes sense to say that if you are female and identify as a man you’re transgender, and if you’re female and identify as a woman then you’re not transgender.

What if I'm an adult and female, therefore a woman but don't identify as anything, what am I? What are detransitioners?

What you are saying doesn't make sense at all.

@SudokuMania

It would be interesting to know how much it does cost companies - not the yearly fee but the time it takes to comply with the processes and paperwork. Is it 3 hours of somebody's time once a year? 3 days, 3 weeks? What is the real cost. And what is the real benefit. The £2500 fee is nothing to big financial organisations. Though the 'not cost effective at this time' excuse reads to me to be just code for 'this scheme is such a ball ache and we are glad to be out of it'

When Nottinghamshire police left the scheme a couple of years ago they said that it took their equality and diversity officer three months to input all the data for the Stonewall application but they didn't seem to know how much time was spent in total on compiling all the relevant information.

www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/nottinghamshire-police-end-participation-stonewalls-3289244

It would be interesting to know how much it does cost companies - not the yearly fee but the time it takes to comply with the processes and paperwork. Is it 3 hours of somebody's time once a year? 3 days, 3 weeks? What is the real cost. And what is the real benefit

The MOJ put male born rapists in womens prisons and still only made number 5 on the SW list of top 100 employers.

I think the better question is what do you have to do to get in the top 4 and do you really want to have to do it.

Companies would be best ensuring they have a boundary and sticking to it and accepting that it means there's only so far they will go.

It would be interesting to know how much it does cost companies - not the yearly fee but the time it takes to comply with the processes and paperwork. Is it 3 hours of somebody's time once a year? 3 days, 3 weeks? What is the real cost.

The FOI to Brighton NHS trust revealed that their application involved over 50 pieces of information totalling over 1400 pages. Dozens of policies.

Imagine all the interdepartmental meetings to agree each policy document.
Many, many hours of management and admin time is the answer. ££££

My company is on the Top 100 list, I will send the letter this week, though I am concerned about disclosing my name, I might send it anonymously.

“ Imagine all the interdepartmental meetings to agree each policy document.
Many, many hours of management and admin time is the answer. ££££”

Imagine, after all that effort and paying the expensive fee, you’re told you aren’t doing enough. That someone in your organisation is behaving in a way likely to lose you your membership.
Imagine being told there’s an easy way to demonstrate your commitment: all you have to do is tweet support, issue a statement...

there’s an easy way to demonstrate your commitment: all you have to do is tweet support, issue a statement...

Or be the NHS Trust that called one woman who needed trauma-informed care (iirc) a transphobe in a public news item …

she saw her letters highlighted by the trust as examples of “unacceptable” and “highly discriminatory” communications in guidelines to support trans patients and staff.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3763519-A-woman-who-asked-for-her-NHS-breast-screening-to-be-carried-out-by-a-female-born-clinician-was-pilloried-as-a-transphobe-by-a-hospital-trust

[quote Helen8220]@CardinalLolzy
but that rests on the notion that "woman" and "female" are interchangeable, which is transphobic. Many males are also women.

I don’t think it rests on the terms being interchangeable- they’re clearly not interchangeable, given that ‘woman’ is generally only used of human beings, and adults, whereas ‘female’ isn’t limited in either of those ways.

That aside, even if you believe that ‘female’, when used in relation to humans, means all and only people who have XX chromosomes (plus some people with intersex variations who don’t have XX chromosomes but are identified as female on another biological basis) - or people who were born with ovaries (ditto re intersex variations), it still makes sense to say that if you are female and identify as a man you’re transgender, and if you’re female and identify as a woman then you’re not transgender.[/quote]
This was because you said "surely anyone whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth must share this protected characteristic"
and then
But broadly it seems to me that if your birth certificate says female and you identify as a woman/female you can’t reasonably be said to be transgender or to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

So does being a woman 'match' being female or not? How are they linked?

(probably better to continue this train of thought over at www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4248587-Does-this-gender-match-this-birth-sex - if you have any appetite for it )

Imagine, after all that effort and paying the expensive fee, you’re told you aren’t doing enough. That someone in your organisation is behaving in a way likely to lose you your membership.
Imagine being told there’s an easy way to demonstrate your commitment: all you have to do is tweet support, issue a statement...

Look what happened to Allison Bailey....

@Tanith

“ Imagine all the interdepartmental meetings to agree each policy document. Many, many hours of management and admin time is the answer. ££££”

Imagine, after all that effort and paying the expensive fee, you’re told you aren’t doing enough. That someone in your organisation is behaving in a way likely to lose you your membership.
Imagine being told there’s an easy way to demonstrate your commitment: all you have to do is tweet support, issue a statement...

Just to add to that, in the case of Edinburgh Uni (info from a FOI request) the sheer amount of effort left them with a policy only for Trans inclusion.

Nothing on sex, race, religion, disability, even LGB....

Hardly an example of a Diversity Champion.

You'd think SW would at least call them out on LGB but no....

All that effort on one small group at presumably the expense of the others because your HR team is only concerned about the gold star from SW on trans inclusion and enough hours in the working day to meet its demands on a single issue.

I'd love to know how many of the champions fail similarly wrt their policies (or lack of) for other protected characteristics.

Based on demographics I'd say those in the same boat are far from Champions, but actually failing a massive proportion of their workforce when it comes to increasing diversity.

Channel 4 have left the scheme, so it seems.

mobile.twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1399778873978626050

Just to add to that, in the case of Edinburgh Uni (info from a FOI request) the sheer amount of effort left them with a policy only for Trans inclusion.

Nothing on sex, race, religion, disability, even LGB....

[quote OhHolyJesus]Channel 4 have left the scheme, so it seems.

mobile.twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1399778873978626050[/quote]
That is a really excellent article!

(Archived here: archive.li/WZRPu)

Ms Bailey released a leaked email from Stonewall’s Head of Trans Inclusion to her Heads of Chambers. The email accuses the barrister of: “targeting a woman who works for us (our trans empowerment manager) and calling her a man”, “calling our work on LGBT equality ‘gender extremism’” and “accusing Stonewall of ‘appalling levels of intimidation, fear and coercion’”.

The email continues: “These actions and their link to Garden Court Chambers, threatens the positive relationship yourselves have built with the trans community through holding events, round tables and meetings for trans people on trans equality and rights.[...]

“However, for Garden Court Chambers to continue associating with a barrister who is actively campaigning for a reduction in trans rights and equality, while also specifically targeting members of our staff with transphobic abuse on a public platform, puts us in a difficult position with yourselves: the safety of our staff and community will always be Stonewall’s first priority.”

The email also contained a list of tweets that Ms Bailey had “liked” and “retweeted” questioning whether male-born people identifying as women are the same as biological women

[snip]

A Stonewall spokesperson said: “We strongly refute any suggestion that we instructed Garden Court Chambers to investigate or take action against Allison Bailey, and believe these allegations are baseless

Surprised to hear about Channel 4!

EHRC
ACAS
House of Commons
DVLA
Dorset Police
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire CCG

UPDATE
Channel 4

Channel 4 eh. I wonder what Sue Pascoe (of reporting WPUK a as terrorist organisation fame) makes of that.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3361150-Dr-Nicola-Williams-on-BBC2-at-10-15-Victoria-Live?pg=8

Your favourite search engine: site:mumsnet.com sue pascoe

@Barracker

EHRC ACAS House of Commons DVLA Dorset Police The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire CCG

UPDATE
Channel 4

Splendid

Such a sad additional blow for Dr CJ.....

Do you think he'll call out C4 as an embarrassing public body?