Women’s Rights Network imploding

[NameChangedWren]

WTF is going on? There are letters circulating with members alleging bullying, and anyone who asks a question is suspended and comments deleted. The leader calling everyone to urgent meetings with bizarre messaging: ‘there is no letter, and if there is it’s full of lies, and you can’t see the letter just trust us, and ooh look, something shiny!’ Should I cut my losses, cancel my standing order and just follow Let Women Speak?

Would WRN want to be a charity?

Company registration is instant and gives protection to individuals and assets

Charity (including CIO) registration can take up to two years - see LGBA

transferring a company into a charity is simple - see Sex Matters

Charities have more limitations - see Stoke Air Ambulance

but for signing legal agreements of any sort

• web domain
• event hire
• printing and advertising

a company means that the individual is not on the hook if it goes wrong

(see also Let Women Speak)

I guess it comes down to whether you think internal bickering
achieves more than papering over differences
and presenting a united front

You seem to have missed the main point of this thread is that many who are part of WRN were not away that the group network they joined had been co-opted by a lone woman and some accolytes.

So this isn't "internal bickering" but jusitifable anger at a takeover, and what also seems heavy handed explusions.

This because its a company you just accept it type of posts seem to suggest not everyone understands what being part of a network or group formed for totally other purposes.

And far better to have it out in the open that what has happened to International Women's Day which has been taken over by an Australian PR company owned and run by one women who has now trade marked the phrase "International Women's Day".

With the result that only businesses enjoy being part of her version of International Women's Day, but worse is the waste of time each year because those who don know about this cooption see a web site called International Women's Day and then start posting on FWR and elsewhere what has this got to do with feminism.

Its called transparency.

Feminist activism isn't being part of the Apprentice.

So sadly even in the campaign work is good, women who sign up or support are entitled to know the reality.

If the limited company thinks its purpose is to create and run campaigns thats fine. But if they are saying you can only be in, use our material or whatever in lines with our regulations they need to make this clear.

And given what seems to be the level of deception this thread hasn't been quite as outraged as some on WPUK let alone the infamous Actual Gender Critical Left.

And a good learning exercise for all of us.

Knowingly signing up to be led is one thing, being tricked into signing up to be led is totally different.

I agree. Being a charity could also limit their political campaigning.

@Talkinpeace

We all know based on earlier posts yesterday that you are a devotee of limited companies.

But as said yesterday nothing of what you say or appears to show you understand that the issue is about a membership network.

So if you can escape from your straight jacket why not address the issue.

Which is about a network of groups who have shared puposes or aim, but do NOT want to be centrally controlled.

Honestly is the FWR or MN Small Business Women's Forum?

Women’s rights network fully intend to charge their members a monthly fee going forward. No organisation should be shielded from criticism.

I think that the title of this thread was unfortunate. There is an interesting discussion to be had here, but I'm not going to join in and keep bumping such an inflammatory title.

The problem isn't that WRN is set up as a company limited by guarantee it's that none of the network members are actually company members.

Anyone who sets up any kind of group that could be targeted by TRAs should consider their liability and the best way to limit personal liability is to operate via a limited company. Useful information for FWR and business forums.

I am an accountant.
I understand the different legal structures and how they mesh together.
I make money out of all of them.

A "membership network" is an ethereal thing, nearly as undefinable as gender.

I would be interested to see your examples of membership networks that do not have a company or charity at their core
because organisation without organisations is tricky

If you do not want to be centrally controlled
that is fine
but bitter experience of 40 years of trying to effect change in lots of areas
tells me
that only the organised have seats at the table.

I think it’s far more that 100 women now

So as long as the Very Important women in the centre get to be at the table for debates it doesn’t matter if they don’t represent the whole of their organisation? These women aren’t elected or chosen on merit you know - it’s just their closeness to Heather. There are other members who might do a lot better at that table, who are being thrown out!

"Membership" of WRN - nobody is a "member" of WRN

You need to be more precise in your use of language in order not to be misleading.

What I think you are trying to say is:

"Membership of the Women's Rights Network (WRN) is not the same as membership of Women's Rights Network Ltd (WRN Company) and members of Women's Rights Network (WRN) are not automatically members of Women's Rights Network Ltd (WRN Company). Currently, there are no members of Women's Rights Network Ltd (WRN Company)."

The organisation does not charge membership.

Again, it would be helpful if you were more precise. I assume that when you say "organisation" that you are referring to WRN not WRN Ltd.

I assume this because membership of WRN Ltd costs £1.

Your statement might therefore lead people to believe that if WRN charged membership that WRN members would then automatically become members of WRN Ltd.

Otherwise why mention that WRN does not charge membership?

However, to quote ScottishWifey at 03/02/2026 20:01 in this thread:

"This year could prove pivotal for the group, especially with their upcoming plans to implement a mandatory subscription fee for all members and their push toward charitable status, which seems to dangle incentives like potential payments to keep volunteers in line."

The shopper twitter groups relied on everybody being on there
after Musk's takeover a lot of people wanted to leave

There are too many people on this thread who were there at the time for you to be able to get away with that sort of bullshit.

I would refer you to the WRN document dated 18 Aug 2022

WRN is moving away from Twitter

Why do we need to change?

"Twitter is not a safe space for WRN to organise. Not only are women frequently suspended, but Twitter could suspend us en masse if they choose, so we are making our website the place where we share important information across the network.
The other reason Twitter is not safe is that all messages are unencrypted. Unlike WhatsApp or other messaging platforms, technical staff at Twitter can read everything we share including user ids and passwords, phone numbers and real names. As WRN grows and becomes more effective, our WRN groups become more of a target.

So, we need to organise away from Twitter.

And finally, there is a potential activist army beyond Twitter. Some are women who have been suspended or permanently banned, and some women simply refuse to put up with the daily barrage of misogyny and lies. We would like these women to be able to join us"

There is no mention of Elon Musk in the rest of that document either.

All the problems women were having with Twitter occurred BEFORE Elon Musk took over on 28 Oct 2022.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/twitter-elon-musk-timeline-what-happened-so-far-rcna57532

Many women who had been permanently suspended BEFORE Elon Musk took over had their accounts reinstated AFTER he took over.

True that "some women simply refuse to put up with the daily barrage of misogyny and lies" .

Also true: this was BEFORE Elon Musk took over.

Those who do not want any part of how the current directors manage the company are entirely free to have nothing to do with it.

Now you are talking about "the company", ie. WRN Ltd. Discussions on this thread have been primarily about how Heather Binning manages WRN (the network). Mostly because few people were aware that WRN Ltd. existed.

By conflating management of "the company" (WRN Ltd.) with management of WRN (the network) you seem to be suggesting a managerial relationship between the Directors of WRN Ltd. and members of WRN (the network).

Is the lack of a clear governance structure for WRN (the network) separate from WRN Ltd. (the company) leading to confusion about who manages what and whom?

Lack of clarity in your comments sometimes makes it difficult to know what you are talking about. At least this time you have been specific in mentioning "the company" (WRN Ltd).

I have no idea who you are but no one needs your permission to leave WRN (the Network) or to not join in the first place.

I guess it comes down to whether you think internal bickering
achieves more than papering over differences
and presenting a united front

Again, you are not being clear in what you mean to say.

Are you referring to "internal bickering" and "papering over differences" and "presenting a united front" within WRN? Or on this Mumsnet thread?

I have no idea so I am not going to comment, except to reiterate that it would be helpful if you could be more precise.

You say in another post:

For those getting irate about the Companies House information.
Please compare WRN with any and every other non profit company limited by guarantee.
The wording is absolutely standard.
PSCs are required by law.

I do not see anyone "getting irate" about WRN Companies House information. Are you sure it is not you getting irate about people discussing WRN Companies House information?

Yes, the Articles of Association for Women's Rights Network Ltd are "absolutely standard", ie. a standard template for a private company limited by guarantee that does not set out to establish a governance system for a "grassroots organisation". Few do. The Articles for such an organisation would therefore be non-standard.

This is relevant because the Articles were discussed in the context of WRN being described as a "grassroots organisation", which is how it has and does promote itself. (See previous posts for proof.)

No one has suggested that PSCs (Persons with Significant Control) are anything out of the ordinary or are not a legal requirement. You seem to be reading statements of fact as complaints of some sort.

Finally, you are coming over, at least to me, as rather bad-tempered and patronising, as well as telling bare-faced lies, ie. about the reason WRN moved from organising in Twitter DM Groups.

I agree with some of your more measured posts, where you are clear about what you are trying to convey. (I am actually wondering now if there is more than one person operating the Talkinpeace account!)

As far as the posts that I am replying to here are concerned: as you seem to have taken it upon yourself to speak on behalf of WRN, you should perhaps take a little more trouble not to make such a bad impression.

That bit about Twitter. Why would anyone use that to organise? Twitter strikes me as a platform to use when you want to make things public, I am sure it could be used in a private way but other platforms are more set up for that, especially if you want a high degree of privacy.

I assume this because membership of WRN Ltd costs £1.

That is limit the normally set for companies limited by guarantee, so if it goes insolvent shareholders are only liable for £1.

WRN is like Animal Farm. All animals are equal at the start, and then the pigs rise to power. We are now at the smears and purges stage. Some people can’t take on positions of power without becoming Napoleon, and there will always be Squealers ready to say “if Heather says it, it must be right”.

It is a shame, because the starting point of local self-governing networks supporting national campaigns was a good one. Many of the groups that have splintered off still operate like this, and support actions by Let Women Speak, Sex Matters etc. I suspect others will follow suit.

My point in all this has been based in the fact that Liz and certain other members of the group in this latest fracas are absolutely assets to the cause, have done lots of brilliant leg work, set up processes, acted as an incredible support network to women who have really needed it and yet have been removed without process, investigation or proper notification, from director to coordinator level because they wanted to follow WRNs stated procedures. This didn’t fit with Heathers party line, so couldn’t be tolerated. It was never anything to do with security, that’s just a handy excuse to shut up dissent. They have all been kept completely in the dark about any ‘investigation’. Presumably because there hasn’t been one.

It’s all very well wittering on about company structures, charitable status and more, but that ignores the fact that this is women working with women, giving up considerable time and expertise for a desperate common cause and being devalued and dumped because of nothing more than ego. Any attempt at disseminating what is actually happening, so that members can be aware that their work is only valuable as long as Heather is happy, has been firmly squashed.

I am a very early member and am also jacking it in. There is very much an attitude that we must simply trust our exalted leader to know best. I’ve had enough of that shit through my working life to voluntarily go through it for nothing. Yet again, women’s knowledge and labour utilised by others but with no right or redress, and this time by other women.

The Twitter DM (Direct Message) Groups and the reasons for using them predate the existence of WRN. The creation of WRN was partly a rebranding exercise of the pre-existing Twitter DM Groups.

They were used pre-WRN and by WRN because most of the women involved were on Twitter already, rather than any other platform.

It can be inordinately difficult to impossible to persuade people (not just women) to move to an unfamiliar platform.

Organising in a private space on a platform with which people are already familiar and are visiting regularly makes perfect sense.

Far from Elon Musk taking over Twitter being a problem, the fact that in 2021 Heather Binning was added to every Twitter DM Group was something that many women found odd and disconcerting.

They were locally-based groups where women knew and trusted each other. Suddenly a stranger who no one knew or had heard of was dumped in their midst.

I think Shirley/SisterFlo might have said that Heather was going to help us organise or something along those lines. I have no idea if she did contribute to any of the pre-existing groups or if she just sat watching and listening in all of them.

Maybe she set up some of the new pre-WRN Groups? I have no idea. It seemed to be Shirley/SisterFlo who was flying around the UK on Twitter-wings getting everyone organised and setting up the new pre-WRN groups to add to the existing "Shoppers" and "Witches" Groups.

There were some women organising in those groups privately "off-Twitter" but the vast majority were organising privately in Twitter DM Groups.

I hope that explains why WRN Groups were originally Twitter DM Groups?

Me too.

TipsyKhakiJoker and RinklyRomaine - well said and sad but true.

This current situation is about due process, transparency, and Heather Binning’s overbearing ego.
As per the leaked letter, HB actively refused to allow WRN’s own written disciplinary procedures to be followed, and wanted to kick out those who disagreed with her. This is a proven pattern of behaviour, with previous groups and members. She has now sacked one of the Directors for the grave crime of having principles and defending WRN procedure.
HB has no interest in transparency, it’s her way or the highway.
90%+ of the membership will have no idea that HB literally owns WRN or that other groups/members have been kicked out for simply disagreeing with Her Highness.
Most who have left/were kicked out kept it quiet to avoid tarnishing WRN’s public image, but that ship has sailed - it is time we all spoke up and made sure all members know how it is being run. We all joined in the first place due to our sense of fairness and justice after all, why accept unfairness in our own group?

There are clearly growing concerns about how WRN is governed and who actually holds decision-making power.

Companies House documents show WRN is a private company limited by guarantee. On incorporation, Heather Binning was the sole director and the person with significant control, holding 75% or more of the voting rights and the right to appoint or remove a majority of directors. Membership is also subject to director approval rather than being automatic.

That is a highly centralised governance structure.

It may be legally valid, but it sits uneasily with the repeated description of WRN as a grassroots, member-led organisation powered by volunteers.

Volunteers are entitled to ask basic questions:

who holds real decision-making power

how directors are appointed and removed in practice

what safeguards exist around suspensions and disciplinary action

what recourse members have if they disagree with decisions

what transparency exists around governance and finances

These are not hostile questions — they are standard expectations in any organisation built on unpaid labour and public support.

If WRN is confident in its governance, clarity should strengthen it. If not, silence will only deepen concern.

Are other members comfortable with this structure, or are similar worries being raised elsewhere?

WorriedFeminist Did you just copy and paste a load of AI generated text into your post???

Edited to removed shocked swearing 🙃

I am merely trying to summarise how the company has been set up and is governed which appears to be without any due process. I also believe that a change of leadership would be the best thing for WRN but as the company is owned by HB, I doubt she would sign it over to someone else unless anything occurs to persuade her to do that. It would mean she would need to put WRN before her own interest...

I think the answers to those questions are in this thread, one woman holds all the control, there is no transparency, and no right of appeal. I have no idea why so many women, especially GC women, who you would think could identify a bullshit situation when they see it, go along with this. I’m happy me and my group left, I didn’t get into this fight to help get someone into the House of Lords.

I don't care how it was written, just tell us if it's untrue @thimblethief. I found it explained a lot and your response sums up a lot about how the WRN leadership appears to be operating: distraction, vagueness, and smearing of anyone who wants transparency and due process.