Can I have some help on EDI pls.

[emailhelp]

I want to write a message about EDI training. I'm sure that there was some ruling or guidance that said that companies couldn't delegate training to an advisory group, that the company was still liable for policy done in their name.

What's the reference, please? Was it Alison Bailey?

bump

I don't think there's any law about who companies can hire to train people? It's an unregulated industry, so you're taking a gamble that the people you hire will tell your staff very questionable stuff, racist terminology, incorrect facts about the law.

The Allison Bailey case held that in her particular circumstances, the employer who believed they were acting themselves under Stonewall advice (which turns out to have led them to act illegally and discriminate against Allison) were liable for how they acted, and so far Stonewall have not been found to be liable for telling them to act in that way, or at least heavily implying they should.

The Alison Bailey judgement clearly showed that an organisation is responsible for how it treats staff, even if they are acting on advice from a third party. Not sure if this helps you, hopefully someone more knowledgeable will be along soon

The Alison Bailey judgement clearly showed that an organisation is responsible for how it treats staff, even if they are acting on advice from a third party.
That's what I'm after. Is there a webpage I can reference.

There is the judgment here, and also a shorter press release, but the latter doesn't go into much detail about Stonewall
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/bailey-v-stonewall-garden-court-chambers-and-others/

You'd probably need to get to know the details to get the most out of it.

iirc there was something in the Reindorf report about Essex University taking advice about Equalities law for policies from a certain organisation which was more about how they wanted it to be than it actually was

https://www.essex.ac.uk/blog/posts/2021/05/17/review-of-two-events-with-external-speakers

https://sex-matters.org/posts/freedom-of-speech/the-reindorf-review-a-wake-up-call-for-universities/

Thanks both, that prompted some more research and this is probably what I want about policy and impartiality. FSU. Added bonus: it's not dry theory, it points out that getting this wrong costs the employer £££. That always gets their attention!

Sorry, thanks to the three of you. Don't want to miss anybody out!

You might get some interesting and useful stuff from this too

https://fairplayforwomen.com/stonewall-transcripts/

The Stonewall response was particularly interesting in this case since they made it very clear: they can provide whatever duff information they choose, they dumped the responsibility entirely on the commissioning party to check facts and ensure legal compliance. So if it all goes horribly wrong as a result of gullibly swallowing bad and politically motivated advice from a lobby group with an agenda rather than an interest in impartially informing you? Yes, as you say, it's going to be very expensive.

The main safeguarding follow up of this case for companies was check your facts, check the law, do due diligence in checking BOTH the organisation and the individual trainer's social media and online presence, check their qualifications and experience to be advising on this subject and expect evidence, (see the Challoner debacle, someone advising on safeguarding who was later found by an investigating team to be 'incapable of understanding safeguarding') and ensure that the qualifications and experience cover ALL NINE protected characteristics, and not just one. And that means experience in working with and advising on all nine characteristics as a group, not just how the other characteristics might affect your chosen and preferred one.

People can easily dismiss the Free Speech Union because it's founded by well-known pillock Toby Young. Yes, I know it's not logical to do that and rejection of an argument should be based on what is said, not who is saying it, but it's rare to find people who actually do that. Just a heads up!

The best quality reference is obviously going to be the actual judgement, if you can précis the bit you need then provide the judgement with the relevant bits highlighted, which is a bit of a palaver, but clearly makes your point!

Good luck!