Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

I would wager that this is down to a desperate attempt to find a loophole rather than any actual uncertainty...

Oh well if the WI don't think the Supreme Court judgment applies to them, that's settled then, isn't it?

It’s an anonymous forum… I could say I’m a judge of 40 years and you’d have no way of knowing. What exactly is the point of asking?

It’s interesting how confident you are about what the WI ‘must’ do, yet the WI itself, its legal advisors, and the Charity Commission don’t seem to share that certainty.

Maybe you've missed the parade of idiotic firms with idiotic legal advisors beclowning themselves in court and losing every single court case, starting with Forstater, and continuing on through to FWS.

Firms ignoring the law is not new.

That's what "capture" is - people having activists acting as if the law is what they want, rather than what it is.

What's the reference to the Charity Commission? I've not seen anything from them since the Supreme Court judgment.

It's interesting how you have not addressed the meaning of "share, nor the singularity of "a", nor explained on what basis you believe your opinion is more valid that Reindorf's.

I'm taking this answer to mean "none whatsoever".

I think he's Lord Sumption

I wouldn’t take it to mean that.
What qualifications do you have? Should I request you to send me proof in the post of a law degree? Maybe send me a link to your LinkedIn page so I can check out solid references?

It’s a ridiculous question.

Well I am in fact a solicitor, yes.

But I'm not nearly as well qualified in this area as, say, Akua Reindorf KC, so why don't we just take her word for it?

It’s not settled, that’s literally the whole point.

What do you mean by "share" here?

This is an absolutely ridiculous thing to suggest.

Do you believe that nothing is against the law until you have lost in court?

Of course you are! Thanks so much for clarifying, I definitely believe you and there’s no way at all you could be lying.

It may be delivered as a single programme but its lawfulness rests on the organisation believing that women as a group are disadvantaged and also, separately, that people of "ethnic minority" are also disadvantaged.

So the organisation thought process would go something like:

1 Women are at a disadvantage and we want to do something about that.

2 People of "ethnic minority" are at a disadvantage and we want to do something about that as well.

3 Our actions to help women are a, b & c

4 Our actions to help people of "ethnic minority" are x, y & z

5 Actions a, b & c look a lot like actions x, y & z

6 To save us some money we will provide separate support to women and to people of "ethnic minority" through one programme as the actions both these separate groups require for support are very similar.

Is it surprising that someone who thinks "share" means "has" thinks "innocent" means "legal"?

I've been very open about it all over this forum, feel free to check my posting history.

Or, as I suggested, defer to an actual expert such as Akua Reindorf.

I thought you weren't talking to me sunshine?

anyhoo,

Melissa Green, current Chief Exec is a third sector veteran. over the past 10 years such people have been very invested in misinterpreting the law for an easy life and to Be Kind.

It seems to me there are 3 ways the WI could be brought to their senses

1. a man without a gender identity tries to join and then takes them to court when he's told he can't

2. the charities commission decide to act like grown ups and point out to the WI that by admitting men they are failing to adhere to their charitable aims

3. people who have provided money to the WI (including me as a member) query the use of funds that they thought they were providing for the use of women only

I bet you they do not answer this question.

Yes, when someone says something several times on an anonymous forum that means it absolutely must be true. That’s solid evidence- thanks.

NOOOOOOOOOOO

oh god we can't do that again

No I think we should do this again.

@WhatNextCatsAsDoctors was clearly using the word "share" in that sentence to mean hold the same opinion.

Otherwise the sentence wouldn't make any sense, would it?

We may be talking at cross purposes here, but I'm not sure what you mean. I said there would have to be separate schemes for the women and ethnic minorities. Even the ethnic minority group I think would have to be broken up into actual racial/ethnic/minority subgroups.

I'd be happy to out myself to someone else on here who comes across as a little more sane, if that would help.

I wonder if writing to the charities commission might be the best move in the first instance

having just spent a weekend submitting the annual accounts for my institute I'm feeling like National fucking owe me. the least they can do is stick to the purpose of the organisation

Yes - I agree that your analysis makes sense.

the example at the friend’s big company didn’t make sense.