Ofcom leaves Stonewall Diversity Scheme but not Workplace Equality Index

[ChristinaXYZ]

"Sex Matters welcomes the news that Ofcom is leaving the Diversity Champions Scheme, but is dismayed that it continues to remain in the secretive “Workplace Equality Index”."

read more

sex-matters.org/posts/workplace-rights/ofcom-leaves-stonewall/

from their website:

"What you can do:

Write to Melanie Dawes:

Welcoming the move to leave the Diversity Champions Scheme Emphasising the need for impartiality and compliance with the Equality Act 2010

Highlighting our report www.sex-matters.org/stonewall-risk/

Asking for information on what a policy of “conflict-free diversity and inclusion partnerships” means and how ???Ofcom are ensuring that their participation in the Workplace Equality Index scheme does not conflict with their obligation to to avoid sex discrimination and belief discrimination.

Calling on Ofcom to also review participation in the Workplace Equality Index, and to commit to release information on it.

Melanie Dawes Chief Executive Ofcom Riverside House 2a Southwark Bridge Road London SE1 9HA "

Ofcom's own statement about this:

www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2021/statement-stonewall-diversity-champions

Well that’s a compromise that will please no one. It would be useful for Ofcom to explain why the Diversity Champions scheme compromises impartiality, but the Equality Index does not.

They'll try to say it's because the Equality Index is only about how they ensure equality for employees, but it's quite clear from the documents involved in the Equality Index that the scheme requires members enact Stonewall law on internal and external policies. Besides which, Stonewall law isn't equality anyway.

Just came on to see if this has been posted. Saw on BBC news. Sounds like great news, Stonewall is not impartial.

It's trending on twitter with the usual suspects complaining.

Beeb is being "Even-Handed" as ever:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58336116

' Ofcom says it will continue to participate in the “Workplace Equality Index” scheme and has refused to release any information on this because it might cause commercial harm to Stonewall.'

Ok, my reading of this is; Ofcom are staying on the workplace equality index as a gift to SW because they are rapidly losing their reputation, and therefore business, a slow motion car crash if you will. SW has not charged them for this (as its basically a favour to SW, a figleaf for their reputation) and offcom are, so far, keeping the schtum about this fact.
My take is this is BIG. SW are basically a grifting organisation, they are ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. So the fact they are reduced to giving away their 'merch' shows, despite what they may say, they are panicking bigtime. The fact an organisation as stone deaf as SW is panicking means they really are in trouble,

Bloody good imo.

If it looks like a Ponzi and acts like a Ponzi....

Now if my civil service department would as well I'd be thrilled, keeping getting asked to do the Stonewall training. Nope.

Off topic, but I'd like to check something:

but it was sad its scheme is seen by some as unimpartial

'unimpartial'? Is that a word? Surely it would be 'partial'?

Michael Cashman gone full on foaming at the mouth on twitter. His rage suggests to me that things are much worse at Stonewall that we might imagine. I think Ofcom and Simon Callow have sent him over the edge.

We're 'Shrill Sirens' apparently. Great name for a choir. I want it on a tee shirt.

He's not taking his misogyny being pointed out well.

Germaine Greer was bloody right.

Now MC is trying to claim he wasn't referring to women when he used the phrase "shrill sirens". So he must have been talking about ambulances or something

twitter.com/mcashmanCBE/status/1430623612445331462?s=19

Pfft. The context is clear as day. He said the 'shrill sirens are opposed to equality'. Noisy klaxons are warnings, not personifications. He might not be clever enough to know he showed his misogynist arse with that, or he might know and be playing dumb, but he meant women and everyone bloody knows it.

It feels like the sun is getting brighter by the day.

@Mollyollydolly

Michael Cashman gone full on foaming at the mouth on twitter. His rage suggests to me that things are much worse at Stonewall that we might imagine. I think Ofcom and Simon Callow have sent him over the edge.

We're 'Shrill Sirens' apparently. Great name for a choir. I want it on a tee shirt.

He's not taking his misogyny being pointed out well.

Germaine Greer was bloody right.

Oooh, Michael Cashman is cross and thinks this has been triggered by "shrill sirens opposed to diversity".

Interesting choice of word, "shrill".

I usually find that it is used by men about women who disagree with them. I wonder if he includes shrill men?

Or what everyone else said :)

[quote Doyoumind]Now MC is trying to claim he wasn't referring to women when he used the phrase "shrill sirens". So he must have been talking about ambulances or something

twitter.com/mcashmanCBE/status/1430623612445331462?s=19[/quote]
We believe you Michael, thousands won't - and don't.

I like your thinking on this one dyslek.

A workplace equality index is a good idea if it gives equal weight to all EA protected characteristics. Stonewalls equality is weighted heavily against women and Stonewall are not neutral. Serves em f!£king right

TRA Twitter is going mental today - vaguely amusing yet so, so tiresome at the same time. The histrionics, the talk of Ofcom 'taking sides', the same old vile nonsense about the LGB Alliance (oh boy, did they not like the BBC describing them as a 'rival' to Stonewall).

I shouldn't look and usually don't, but they're really a shower of fact-averse, hysterical fanatics. The more they screech 'transphobe', the less it means anything at all.

I usually find that it is used by men about women who disagree with them. I wonder if he includes shrill men?

I doubt it. The sirens in Greek mythology were women who lured men to their death by the sweetness of their song. "Shrill" of course makes no sense in that context, so Cashman obviously wasn't thinking very hard about the metaphor he was using. But I don't imagine he thinks very hard about anything.

Maybe the LGB Alliance could start an anti-homophobia corporate membership scheme which businesses could join. No doubt this would be the wrong sort of equality training though.

BBC article which had some clear and factual language around single sex spaces being opened up by Stonewall has been hastily rewritten after Twitter complained. Original wording in this image.

Because when it's written as clearly as that most people will start to say hang on, these should be separated by sex and not 'gender identity'. The separation is based on the physical need (e.g. women's toilets must have sanitary bins) not feelings

Also thought it was an interesting summation of what you get for your stonewall £££ - no advice around gay rights?
And why do you need to pay a lobby group for this advice, shouldn't there be clear legal/HR advice on this?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58336116

I shouldn't look and usually don't, but they're really a shower of fact-averse, hysterical fanatics. The more they screech 'transphobe', the less it means anything at all.

Every time somebody does something they disagree with, or says something they don't like, the response is always full-on histrionics. People are wicked, they are bigots, they are transphobic, they are killing trans people with the literal violence of their words.

They're supposed to be adults but they're all behaving like Violet Elizabeth Bott. I think eventually normal people will get fed up with the tantrums.

Stonewall said it fully respects the decision but is sad about it being seen as not unimpartial
Really? There are clearly members of Stonewall who don't fully respect the decision.

Not Unimpartial? Full on doublethink in action. They wrap themselves up in clever sounding language to bamboozle the unaware without realising they make nonsense out if the very words they use.

Ofcom is painstakingly meticulous in every decision and hyper aware of getting value for money. This decision would not have come lightly at all.