Stonewall after Nancy Kelley - all cleaned up?

[HagoftheNorth]

A friend who works in HR - and therefore in the team responsible for sourcing edi training - was telling me about their use of Stonewall. Apparently, now Nancy Kelley has left, it’s all cleaned up, no longer strays beyond the EA and doesn’t have any connection with academics exploring ‘minor attraction’ (or directors posting dodgy content on SM - maybe I’m getting them mixed up with Mermaids?)

I’m finding this quite difficult to believe, but frankly, I don’t have the time to research it properly. Does anyone have any up to date information?

Even a cursory glance at the Stonewall website indicates that it's all the same old crap, including the homophobic nonsense about 'same gender attraction'.

'Trans' still includes 'crossdressers' and 'transphobia' is 'The fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it.'

Have a look at the website.

Stonewall will say anything to protect the, doubtless large paycheques they are paying themselves out of lying.

'Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?'

Have they replaced Kelley? Or did I miss that?

And what about the chairperson?

Stonewall identify as being all better now. Lets put it that way. As Mermaids identify as those 5 separate safeguarding disasters not having been safeguarding disasters, or needing fixing, and only mean people would mention them.

I'd tactfully remind your friend that Stonewall's reply in a court of law was 'well it doesn't matter if what we trained them on was bollocks and an intentional misinterpretation of the law: they didn't check and they chose to take our word for it so sucks to be them.'

I think sometimes organisations just go past their sell by date.

Especially NGO/lobby groups that achieve their aims.

Well said Frood and Arabella

Surely if a charity charges the taxpayer money for legal advice that is knowingly incorrect then it should be pursued by the NHS and public sector for compensation?

Couldn't compensation be sought for the financial losses of rectifying the false information with accurate legal advice, plus the costs of rectifying the damage done when the incorrect advice is put into practice? Whether that’s reconfiguring toilet facilities or service provision or anything else.

They deliberately misquoted and trained people in the Equalities Act which doesn't exist, on purpose, so that when they finally got found out, they could say 'We don't know what these people are on about, the Equalities Act doesn't even exist', and plead plausable deniability.

In my humble opinion - allegedly - blah blah blah.

Rubbish. Much more likely that it's full of her protégés and people doing the same thing as her.

Does Stonewall have a trading arm? As a charity charging for training services does not fall within the Charities Act. For example Oxfam and the like have a separate trading arm for their shops.

Hmmmm am going to look int o this one.

Karen, have a look at the Stephen Nolan podcast if you haven’t listened to it already. It’s an absorbing 10 hours, but it doesn’t take that long to get the gist. I’m guessing that anything that deeply embedded in an organisation’s way of being isn’t going to change very quickly. However, Stonewall does seem to be a step up from Mermaids, what with not having that level of dubious actors on its board - unless someone knows otherwise?

remind your friend that lobby groups are not accountable for anything. In 3 years time when something goes horribly wrong they can do a midnight flit leaving you to explain massive holes in your data, no due diligence, no consultation etc.

A lobby group could tell you to give all your employees a million bucks, a flame thrower, a day off every Tuesday to do skydiving - it doesn’t have to be sensible well educated advice. They’re just lobbying you to do what they want.

Do not outsource your thinking especially if you are legally responsible when the shit hits the fan.