Stonewall ‘wasted donor money’ on challenging equality regulator

[IwantToRetire]

Baroness Falkner of Margravine said that the charity’s decision to attempt to have the regulator stripped of its top-level UN status did “nothing” to help those the charity tries to protect and suggested the action had wasted donors’ money.

... these attempts at discrediting the regulator did nothing to protect or promote equality or human rights, nothing for those with the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment.

One would expect that a fair-minded donor would not have wished for their funds to have been expended on this pursuit.

Full article https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/stonewall-trans-gender-ehrc-cqmtn258m

Also in full at https://archive.is/kuiFb

Kishwer Falkner (Baroness Falkner)

Baroness Falkner seems to be a woman of good old fashioned common sense. Stonewall felt untouchable for a while so they thought they could spend the money on whatever they pleased. It's time charities in general should be transparent about where their supporters money is going

They've been very quiet lately.

I wonder what they're up to.

Other matters aside, they are implementing redundancies at scale. I hope they’re supporting their staff with that.

Hopefully closing down.

They’ve been hit by the Trump administration closing down their International Aid budget, hence redundancies.

I have no doubt they're trying to exercise influence behind closed doors (a la Denton's strategy) and now the freebie clothes / party / gifts to MPs route has been exposed to a critical public, finding different ways of extracting money from the public purse to pursue their campaign to remove safeguarding from children and eradicate women's rights.

🎯
Plus trying to shore up support for Conversion Therapy legislation, which if passed - even in watered down form - could be as big a disaster for women's rights and child safeguarding as the GRA.
The risk to gender questioning children is obvious but a conversion therapy act would put "gender identity" into primary legislation. GI would then become a legal concept and could be used as such. I believe this to be the primary aim of those pushing for it.

Even with their agenda revealed so starkly, I feel you and other PPs are correct in thinking their influence and lobbying continues but out of sight and not in diarised/accountable meetings and events.

I always assumed that the commitment to the conversion therapy bill was a favour returned for free suits, dresses, sunglasses, accommodation, parties etc. The enjoyment of freebies evidently outweighing the responsibility to safeguard children from harm. 😡

It would also explain the prime minister repeatedly beclowning himself with his Stonewall generated witterings about women, cervices, what women aren't allowed to speak about and positioning the immensely powerful trans lobby as the most vulnerable people in society. So many tone deaf comments while being completely oblivious to the public's condemnation of those views.

(The reality being the vulnerable group are all the children who've been groomed in o believing their bodies are wrong but a sex change will cure them)

I think the point of the article is a very polite and gentle reminder that charities that ask donors to give the money for various projects (which may even be worthwhile) can not then start legal actions or campaigns that are political.

There was nothing that stopped Stonewall once it decided to add on the "T", to then start a useful discussion about how to balance the rights of the many different groups they said came under their umbrella.

In fact they shot themselves in the foot with their approach because basically they weren't able and still aren't able to equally support the various groups (especially the "L") they claim to represent.

Simon Blake (CEO) said "I am committed to to ensuring our work to advance equality benefits everyone within the diverse LGBTQ+ community...my single focus is on ensuring that our efforts are focussed on tackling issues facing LGBTQ+ right now"

Benefits everyone in the LGBTQ+ community with no thought for anyone else? That makes his version of equality adversarial against other minorities, surely? And Stonewall's challenge to the ECHR was surely a sign that they want 'equality' their way and no one else's.

And

Does this focus include lesbian women being urges to 'suck my lady dick' and told that declining sex with transwomen is transphobic? How deep is their support for lesbian women? As women?