Whistleblowers at EHRC say that Kishwer Falkner is the victim of a 'witch-hunt by trans lobby'

[IwantToRetire]

Relations are said to have soured after she backed legal reforms guarding the rights of biological women in single-sex spaces such as hospital wards and toilets.

The employees at the Equality and Human Rights Commission are said to have compiled a dossier, setting out more than 40 complaints aimed at Baroness Falkner by a dozen current and former colleagues. A source said: 'People within the organisation are deeply concerned that this is a witch-hunt.

'The timing is extremely questionable. There is no doubt in my mind that this is ideologically motivated and is a way to take a scalp in revenge. ...

Baroness Falkner is said to have been left 'heartbroken' by the allegations but those close to her said her 'conscience was clear'. They branded the move by EHRC staff a 'failed coup d'etat'.

Members of the commission's board, which is headed by Baroness Falkner, have called for an overhaul of the 2010 Equality Act, which refers to gender and sex interchangeably.

They argue it should be amended to explicitly define sex as 'biological sex' to bring legal clarity in areas including sport and ensure only 'biological women' can use single-sex spaces.

Staff from the executive team were said to having been pushing to allow for gender self-identification, allowing trans people to state their chosen gender without any medical diagnosis.

A second source said: 'The executive just refused to accept the board's decision. There were strenuous efforts to reject it and it was around this time allegations were starting to be made.

'There is a very progressive, activist-inclined staff who are influenced by organisations and groups like Stonewall.'

The source said senior executives had grown accustomed to calling the shots at the commission but this changed when Baroness Falkner took over to provide 'real leadership'.

They said the complaints felt like a move to 'get her', adding: 'This process of finding fault with Kishwer is clearly political.' The dossier is said to have made claims of discrimination, including transphobia, bullying and harassment. ...

Full story (sorry!) at DM https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12112707/Whistleblowers-human-rights-commission-say-boss-facing-witch-hunt-trans-lobby.html

'She is getting no financial support on her side whereas the organisation has appointed at huge cost a KC – that is money that could be spent on protecting people against discrimination.'

One source close the baroness said she has had to dip into her savings and pension to cover legal bills.

The source added friends fear for the baroness's health, saying: 'The impact has been devastating. It is taking up all her energy and is causing an untold amount of stress.

'We are all worried sick about how much weight she has lost and how often we see her upset and tearful.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12128639/Equalities-watchdog-suspends-probe-EHRC-chairman-Baroness-Falkner.html

This is how C4 news responded to criticism of their reporting:

The report sparked a lively debate

which illustrates their level of accurate reporing. https://www.channel4.com/news/equality-and-human-rights-commission-says-it-has-paused-independent-investigation-into-chair-baroness-falkner

I must be as thick as mince. The EHRC must have a robust complaints procedure but its senior management choose to ignore it in favour of a KC led inquiry into a 'dossier'. It makes no sense to me.

A grievance procedure requires a senior manager to be appointed as the lead investigator.

In this situation all the executive team and board are subjects of the grievances and so can't be appointed as objective leads of the investigation into their own actions.

So Boo went external.

It happens a lot more than you think.

In one of the investigations of me I had overridden a steer from the VC. No one internally would be impartial as they would all be influenced by their place in the hierarchy.

I was actually quite happy to be externally examined as it ultimately reiterated that the VC is not above the law as I had determined by disregarding their instructions.

I know it's painful but this is a seasoned woman who will be exonerated because she's navigating a fine line on course.

The craziness is noise. A cold legal assessment is worth the pain.

This is now a global issue. I'm extremely proud of the Baroness. We should all aspire to be as resilient as she is.

The allegations warrant investigation. Ever since the investigation became public knowledge, her allies, gender critical politicians and the right wing media (e.g. The Telegraph and The Daily Mail) have gone into overdrive with clear intent to undermine the investigation, and naturally this has been successful. There may be a legitimate question to ask about whether Channel 4's journalism will prejudice the investigation, but their journalism is nothing compared to what has happened in the right wing media since, with phrases like "witch hunt" and "civil service coup". It's enormously hypocritical.

Read my posts gooner. I am in support of the investigation.

The EHRC must have a robust complaints procedure but its senior management choose to ignore it

In fact what happened was the complaint procedure was started but then one of the group who made the complaint escalated it before the process had even started.

And then it was leaked to the public. Well at least to C4 who in deciding to report one side of the disagreement, further jeopardised the internal process from being able to be followed.

So management may not have been brilliant, but it seems from reports that those making the complaint didn't think what they said should have to examined and then made any interal procedure virtually impossible to continue because of it becoming public.

There was also a suggestion that the complaint submitted was hard toasses, ie it didn't say on x date this happened, and then on y date something else happened. The complaint submitter was just one long continuous paragraph more about how they felt about the organisation.

Yes, throw enough shit some will stick.

But if the executive team have had shit flung at them, they have to stand back for an objective assessment.

The Twitter xxx (pick your own word) are now asserting that the barrister is not impartial of course.

But the investigation is about the merits of each sentence written down and how each writer explains their motivation.

Not the motivation of the barrister. This is not a criminal trial.

I can believe this of the civil service. There has been a recent staff network set up called SEEN (Sex Equality & Equity Network) to champion upholding sex-based rights in the workplace, and the vitriol unleashed on the network and the complaints that it should never have been allowed to exist are hideous. It's Cabinet Office approved, like every other staff network, and I understand the founders tread a very careful line to be respectful, legal and not at all inflammatory. Very measured. But the outcry that the network hasn't been instantly shut down for its awful transphobia wanting trans people erased is just dreadful.

In my experience very little of what Tallisker describes actually floats it's way right up to the top.

The vitriol goes on a couple of layers down.

I think all this (not just in the civil service) it because for some years - even decades - the entryism into influential organisations and institutions by the informal network of trans activism went unnotices or commented on.

And in fact was done so under the radar that when more and more pro trans initiatives started to be introduce is seemed like a "natural" progression.

So the fight back to re-establish women's rights is still on the back foot.

But during that time many, mainly younger, people just assumed the trans way was THE way. Some are probably genuinely in shock as it has never been said to them that maybe their position is not only not unquesitonable, but can be said to be discriminatory.

Yes, so speak plainly. I do.
I've just written an Equality Impact assessment for a new policy affecting the senior teams where I clearly state that we don't use identity data because it's not in the statutory code of practice, and is not a full data set because it's optional.

End of. No one has disputed this. They are talking shite if they do and I will tell them that, politely and legally and fairly.

Investigate me, I have a good track record.

I agree that the investigation needs to go ahead - I just think the scope should include those making the allegations.

Following press coverage re EHRC an ex Department for Education employee has described similar targeting going on there:

Ex Department for Education employee tells of GC views being 'not appropriate' | Mumsnet

It's going to. Everyone will be interviewed and given feedback on their merit of their grievances.

I know that the process is the punishment. It's now a factor of senior management and actually, women are needed in senior management to close the gender pay gap. But in my experience as the old saying goes "what does not kill you makes you stronger".

I work to high standards. The general loathing of HR compels this. It also breeds resilient people, female management needs to be resilient.

The Baroness is a fine example of resilient leadership.

We should all be very proud of her and all women like her.

Janice Turner's take on this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cc40627c-fbf1-11ed-bc7a-1444acf8fa38?shareToken=865cf0da65bf800ed496bdb1deb887ef

C4 News certainly did not "examine" the claims and allegations. Admittedly an 'examination' would have been difficult, as, other than the "bloke in lipstick" allegation, none of them was specific.

They also deliberately excluded opposing claims and allegations - including the explanation of the 'bloke in lipstick' quote.

They are now doubling down by responding to complaints about lack of impartiality and fairness with the line that they invited Kishwer Falkner to have her say - knowing full well that she couldn't, due to...the investigation they were reporting.

They must also have known that broadcasting their little hatchet-job would compromise the investigation.

The report failed to meet OFCOM standards of due impartiality, and gave undue prominence to one view and opinion.

It was yet another shameful example of an organisation going along with a handful of assertive activists in their midst.

It's a massive outpouring of the most extreme sexism imaginable.

Another, much longer Telegraph article:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/26/ehrc-suspends-investigation-baroness-falkner/

Also in full linked here:

twitter.com/cforwomenuk/status/1662205292048977921?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

An EHRC spokesperson said: “The Board has full confidence in our CEO, Marcial Boo, and we are working closely with him and his Executive Leadership Team to manage this sensitive and fast-moving situation.”

That's the kind of statement Premier League Football Club Chairmen/Boards put out about their team's manager on a Saturday to then sack the manager on Monday.

Thanks for this. It sounds weird compared to how my company handles complaints but if it works then it works.

EDI policies have become a massive income stream for the legal profession.

FTFY. There is now an EDI-Industrial Complex in the Dwight Eisenhower sense of Thing-Industrial Complex. Lawyers, self-proclaimed "experts", trainers, protected characteristic du jour equality officers, accreditation schemes, you name it. And the answer always seems to be "spend more money on something else from the EDI-Industrial Complex". Spend on more training, spend on an another officer salary, spend on another accreditation scheme. In the whole of my time in HE, I've seen two scholarship places created for Black students, and none for any other protected characteristic. Yet I've never worked anywhere that didn't have Athena Swan silver (and yet I still faced sexism in all of them) nor Stonewall accreditation (and I still saw overt lesbophobia in one). How many scholarships could be funded by quitting these schemes and firing the EDI staff?

Very interesting Hepwo about your experience of investigationsand I agree with your analysis of what looks to be happening at EHRC. it does seem right for EHRC to have chosen an independent external investigation. Investigating a Chair who the executive staff report to, can’t be done internally by that executive staff when the allegations are so serious., surely.

I thought Marcial Boo’s statement was really sensible about the EHRC’s disappointment with the C4 report etc. I don’t know if it would help EHRC to lose a CEO on the basis that they had presided over the period in which some TRA staff kicked off. If the CEO has done the right thing with the investigation and has also worked well with the Board to then unless there are other problems we don’t know about, it sounds like Boo hasn’t done anything to merit sacking. Surely it’s the few TRA staff that should leave EHRC for bringing the EHRC into disrepute, not Boo or Falkner?
It also doesn’t seem fair that Baroness Falkner has to cover her own legal costs.

Also that is an excellent Janice Turner article- thank you for the link Igneococcus.

I don’t know if it would help EHRC to lose a CEO on the basis that they had presided over the period in which some TRA staff kicked off. If the CEO has done the right thing with the investigation and has also worked well with the Board to then unless there are other problems we don’t know about, it sounds like Boo hasn’t done anything to merit sacking.

He hasn't and any dismissal would have no grounds on what is in the public domain currently. It's a a stretch to imagine there are any grounds for dismissal that would be found.

Surely it’s the few TRA staff that should leave EHRC for bringing the EHRC into disrepute, not Boo or Falkner?

In my experience they choose to exit their selves in a huff when a boring legal document sets out why their opinions are just their opinions and are not going to set the world on fire as they had hoped. Depends on how big their credit card debt is though.

It also doesn’t seem fair that Baroness Faulk has to cover her own legal costs.

This I agree with. I agree with this because the rush to external legal assessment has become too routine.

This has become too routine because leaders lack the strength of character to stand firm and say there's no substance to these allegations.

Leaders don't stand firm and say there's no substance because they are also not backed up by leaders on boards.

We have a leadership deficit because of how taxing this activist trend is.

As someone now over 60 all I can say is this:

The gender pay gap exists because women in their 50s are not yet in leadership positions in sufficient numbers.

If you are a woman in your 50s or 60s with a backbone and integrity now is your time.

This is the behavioural change we need. Women with integrity and strength and resilience. I can tell you I would happily consider retirement but I'm not going to. 68 year old Baroness Kishwar Falkner is a lesson to all women and an inspiration to me.

Get on with it and manage this situation, we are needed.

Bit concerned that the Telegraph in its reporting is now going to make thinks worse eg:

Victorious equality chief says ‘we need to say less and do more’

Seems a really stupid thing to say as the investigation is only on hold, and it makes it just about one individual rather that the internal political divisions.

If interested here is the link as reproduced by yahoo Victorious equality chief says ‘we need to say less and do more’ (yahoo.com)