Freedom of Information requests about SEEN and Mumsnet

[carpety]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/laura_brown_4

Dozens of requests to various public sector bodies asking about SEEN Networks and MN posts made by employees.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1hobn9b/seen_network/

"There's been discussion here previously of the Sex Equality and Equity Network (SEEN). I've been using Freedom of Information requests to investigate this group's activities, particularly in the Civil Service (where they seem to have originated), and thought people might be interested in what I've learned."

Seems that this requestor is on a mission to unmask heretics.

They used to have it on their website, but then hid it - around the time, funnily enough, that women were starting to see the direction Stonewall had gone in and to ask public bodies that appeared on the list why they thought that was a good use of our taxes 😋(and sometimes suggesting to private companies too that we might not want to spend our money with companies that hate women!).
Also, a lot of their previous customers HAVE pulled out already, so hiding the list makes that less obvious too... 😏

Didn't they get all their "diversity champions" to claim the FOIs were vexatious when women wrote to them to ask about it? Laura should sympathise.

All these companies are proudly and secretly working for Stonewall points that they can then proudly not tell anyone about.

Within the tiny bubble that is DEI, they all seem to do it proudly. But overall, most companies seem kind of shy about it. I'm minded of all the businesses that make a. ot of fanfare about rainbow washing 'Pride', but don't mention it in their Saudi accounts.

Almost like they're not really proud, or brave, at all.

Article in the Mail today highlighting that Stonewall's income is steadily reducing. They seem to be being propped up the government money - funded of cours via the trans captured civil servants. Yet another reason why the SEEN networks are so important:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14265013/Stonewall-increasingly-reliant-taxpayers-money-overall-finances-suffer-prompting-calls-public-bodies-end-support-LGBTQ-lobbying-group.html

I saw that one this morning and commented to the effect that extremists like them shouldn't be getting a penny of public money.

Ooof! Stonewall are FUCKED!

I wonder what Mermaids coffers look like post Susie Green’s era?

That is a big old deficit and the reserves aren't looking too great.

There was a different way forward for trans rights that didn't depend on squashing the rights of others. They can't say they weren't warned.

That lobby was far too busy chanting slogans and crying #NoDebate. The result was constant threats of 'cancellation', of deplatforming perfectly reasonable speakers, of hounding women out of their jobs, of intimidating women's conferences, meetings, and lesbian dating events, and shaming and intimidating them into silence. Women have talked ourselves blue in the face and for their troubles have been cried down as bigots, doxed, threatened, and far too many have had their reputations and livelihoods destroyed.

Now that the tide is turning and TRAs are beginning to ask for discussion (they haven't yet arrived at the 'compromise' solution), it can hardly be wondered at that those on the receiving end of these tactics no longer want a debate.

Careful what you wish for.

"Stonewall refused, saying: “We do not and will not acknowledge a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights”.’"

Oh good, that's sorted then! They aren't asking for any "rights" that would impinge on single-sex spaces.

It really is quite weird to see formerly respected charities just openly lie.

Leaving aside the Stonewall lobbying priorities this, quoted in the article, is important.

There needs to be far stricter rules about taxpayer-funding of charities who also engage in political lobbying

The public sector using Stonewall, or any lobbying organisation, for training and consultancy is potential a huge conflict of interest.

Yes. As are schools - legally required to be politically neutral while allowing Stonewall and countless other queer theory trans lobby groups to access education funding. Funding that's meant to be for children in order to promote their education and well being. Not diverted to organisations promoting a niche adult fetish and working to erode the boundaries of girls and women.

That lobby was far too busy chanting slogans and crying #NoDebate. The result was constant threats of 'cancellation', of deplatforming perfectly reasonable speakers

It's notable that one of the strongest pillars of this was Ruth Hunt, for whom it's all worked out splendidly on an individual basis, irrespective of what it's done to the value and long-term sustainability of Stonewall.

I could weep when I think what's happened to Stonewall but it seems to be the fate of organisations to end up being the oppressors that they were formed to oppose. (Recent UN/ACLU/Amnesty stances and activities come to mind.)

Funding that's meant to be for children in order to promote their education and well being

Im just pulling this bit out to add -

whilst SEN TAs are providing resources for pupils out of their own pockets as there’s not enough in the coffers.

Agreed. And of course I should have pointed out that children in school - especially girls - are the rabbits in the headlights while dodgy men abuse the education system in order to lecture children that they must accept the presence of the opposite sex when undressed / vulnerable. And of course this male supremacist argument gives boys an appalling message about boundaries, male power and safeguarding.

Is there a SEEN in education I wonder given the craven capture of all the teaching unions?

There is "SEEN in Schools" https://x.com/seeninschools?lang=en

Thank you. Much needed - I hope all the adults prioritising children rather than a dodgy ideology consider joining up .

SEEN in schools seems to mostly just be twitter? I can't see a website.

I'm not on twitter so there's a limit to what I can see.

"Another anonymity application refused, this one from Samantha Tempest, the trans-identifying man who is suing Defra for permitting SEEN to exist as a staff network."

https://x.com/legalfeminist/status/1878189766518120488?t=YDgkZHLA40hlJr13imHJtg&s=19

Paragraph 33 is rather a corker

Have you a link? I can't see any docs in the Tweet.

Hopefully this will work - the link is in the Crowdfunder update:

drive.google.com/file/d/1mRKgm3j1O5e3BgDIeuESpaaJEZ2k_A_2/view

The key conclusions - read and enjoy

31. The Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a genuine concern by the claimant that she may be “outed” as trans, if the Anonymity Order were not granted. The Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant has made no secret of her transgender identity. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses that the claimant’s transgender identity is well known within her workplace and is likely to be recognised easily by persons meeting with or prevent the claims being pursued. speaking to the claimant.
32. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the failure to make an Anonymity Order would deter or prevent the claimant from pursuing her claims. The Tribunal does not accept that the claimant is likely to be put at such risk of physical or other harm as to prevent the claims from being pursued. It is the claimant who has chosen to bring these claims in the public tribunal. The claimant has had the benefit of legal representation throughout the proceedings and therefore must have been aware that the claims, the evidence and the Judgment would be the subject of public scrutiny. Having brought the claims in November 2023, there was no indication of an application for an Anonymity Order until April 2024 and the application was not formally lodged until June 2024. Throughout that time, the claimant would have been aware that the respondent intended to defend the proceedings and that there would accordingly be a public trial of the claims and issues between the parties.
33. The Tribunal takes into account that the claims brought and the grounds of defence, both engage the nature of the working relationships between employees of substantial government departments. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent and Intervenor both allege that the claimant seeks to prohibit the presence of the Intervenor in her workplace and that this is itself an act of “bullying and harassment” by the claimant. The subject matter of the claims and the grounds of the response are likely to be of enormous public interest and are likely to attract the attention of the press due to that subject matter. The freedom of the press to report openly and accurately about the issues in the case would be adversely impacted if the identity of the claimant could not be published.
34. The Tribunal does not accept Ms Cunningham’s submissions that the basis of its consideration of the application is not one which requires a balancing exercise to be carried out between the conflicting rights of the claimant and the principle of open justice. Once the Tribunal accepts that the wording of Rule 50 requires there to be a “necessity” in the interests of justice, it is clear from the case law that the appropriate balancing exercise must be carried out.
35. Having considered all of those matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for there to be an Anonymity Order in respect of the claimant’s identity. The Tribunal is satisfied that in this case the principle of open justice ought to be given priority over any convention rights of the claimant under Article 8.
36. For those reasons the claimant’s application for an Anonymity Order under Rule 50 is refused.

Yes, very interesting. So they are suggesting that the claimant is engaging on bullying. I think there will be some interesting detail revealed at the tribunal.

It does rather sound as though DEFRA have lost patience with ST, doesn't it?

I just noticed that I am one of the stalkees for a totally innocuous comment. Really quite alarming and I was briefly upset, although I am seeing the funny side having read Defra's 9 Jan PFO (my compliments and sympathy to the correspondence team, who will have spent so many hours on that reply. Just what you want over Xmas).

Imagine conducting yourself in this manner as a civil servant. It's embarrassing. Surely also harassing colleagues/wasting the time of FOI teams is not in keeping with CS Values? Laura seems to have FOI'd her own department, so she's clearly not worried about her reputation.