Stonewall - tracking following the Supreme Court judgement

[KnottyAuty]

Inspired by the politicians thread, here’s one to follow the next phase of Stonewall’s journey.

Please do post your screenshots, links and archive links. Having given out advice which was unlawful theres bound to be a lot of coverage in the coming weeks and months.

Starting with this headline from The Telegraph.

https://archive.is/LD8Mu

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/04/17/stonewalls-hour-of-reckoning-has-finally-arrived/

What a fantastic article. Thank you for sharing.

Stonewall’s own statement yesterday:

https://archive.ph/Zkz64

We’re being threatened with more “clarity” from these idiots? 🙄
They’re the primary cause of the whole fucking mess in the first place.

So, in response to the SC finding of women having rights based on their sex, Simon Blake is apparently showing signs of being ‘sick as a parrot’ (as they used to say).

I suspect there are many men who are disgusted that entitled men mightn’t be so easily able to trample over women’s rights. And many advocate for males being entitled (as their right) to violate women’s rights, whilst wearing an air of virtuosity.

Just my firmly held opinion of these buckos.

Guardian letters:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/30/stonewall-policy-of-no-debate-on-trans-rights-was-a-mistake

“A core message for charities and all advocates for social justice from this regrettable situation might be that campaigning by diktat rather than persuasion is very rarely successful.”

Brilliant letters.

Telegraph 2/5/25
Stonewall charity status under threat unless it respects trans rulings

https://archive.is/MNekG

Screenshot

@KnottyAuty now that is interesting!

Can’t believe it’s not been done before TBH! They’ve clearly given appalling advice to the NHS resulting in unlawful policies and non existent Equality Impact Assessments. The level of deception and theft of public funds seems like fraud to me. IANAL

Oh they really are planning to die on this hill, aren't they.

The passive aggressive use of quotation marks around the word clarity are a nice touch.

A spokesman for Stonewall said: “We are taking time, and legal advice, to fully understand the implications of Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC’s interim update and get ‘clarity’ on the next steps including the timeline of the consultation and on the parliamentary process for a new statutory code of practice.

“We are highlighting that organisations don’t need to take any action yet, or change their policies, because no new statutory guidance has been issued. The widespread implications of the ruling are still being considered and there will be a consultation process and a subsequent parliamentary process before any changes to statutory guidance are issued.

“Once, and if, there is new statutory guidance, Stonewall will review its own materials to ensure they reflect the latest legal developments. Stonewall’s guidance has always reflected the law.”

Maya Forstater 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏❤️

“Stonewall’s guidance has always reflected the law.”

Yes that’s why you’ve got a massive legal disclaimer on your website and provided discriminatory advice and poor EqIA templates. It’s all been documented and recorded you idiots!

Looks like they’ll be off to the Charity Commission next week. Where’s the gardening fund?

This is truly excellent stuff 😁

Maya is a great example of a woman just living her life who when screwed over by the special men becomes the dragon they wish they hadn't poked. If you're reading Maya, you're an absolute warrior. Thank you😘

Think she’s busy slaying dragons!

Go Maya! 💪🏻😍 🐉 🗡️

Also Times coverage - Stonewall accused of misleading the public over Supreme Court ruling

archive.is/m7s6l

And they said the Supreme Court’s historic judgment – that the definition of a woman was based on biological sex – had not yet become law.

I thought the Judges clarified it had always been the law but now Stonewall says it's never been 🤔

I know! But I suppose if you’ve invested 15 years in a complete lie then it’s difficult to break out of that way of thinking? Baffling

Now let me see who I believe - on one hand we have five Supreme Court judges with their unanimous judgment and on the other hand ... Stonewall.

😒 hmm, tricky

This is utter fucking bollocks. Everyone, including organisations, have an obligation to comply with the law, statutory guidance or no.

Usual Stonewall attempt to subvert the law to their own agenda. You’d think they’d have a learned a lesson that ‘Stonewall law’ doesn’t take any kind of precedence over actual Rule of Law. They really need the book throwing at them.

"Stonewall’s guidance has always reflected the law.”

If you're using "reflect" to mean "turned it backwards", maybe.

Reflected the law as Stonewall would like it to be

or in a crazy fairground house of mirrors…