The British spy agency GCHQ has cut ties with Stonewall as the charity faces a funding crisis fuelled by Trump’s anti-diversity push. The Telegraph has the story.
GCHQ, which is responsible for the UK’s signals intelligence, is no longer a member of the group’s corporate diversity programme, it is understood, despite once being a vocal champion of the scheme.
A reference to the agency’s status as a “Stonewall Diversity Champion” on its careers website was removed after GCHQ was contacted by the Telegraph.
The decision has emerged as Stonewall faces a funding crisis triggered by Mr Trump, who has declared his intention to “destroy the deep state”. Elon Musk has gutted US overseas aid spending as part of his government efficiency drive. Stonewall’s largest funder in recent years has been the US State Department. …
Stonewall has said the US Government is pursuing an “agenda that will spread hate and fear”.
GCHQ’s decision to severe ties with the charity comes against a backdrop of strain on the relations between the “five eyes” intelligence alliance – made up of the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Peter Navarro, a senior adviser to Mr Trump, last week reportedly proposed kicking Canada out of the group as a trade war tactic. …
Dozens of government departments and organisations have abandoned their Stonewall memberships since the pandemic, having once paid thousands of pounds to rank among its top 100 LGBT-friendly employers.
GCHQ last featured on Stonewall’s top 100 list in 2018 and was listed as a “diversity champion”.
Britain’s other security agencies have also featured prominently as backers of Stonewall. MI5 ranked as number four on the list in 2019 and MI6 was ranked number 88 in 2020. None have featured since.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
so many hateful organisations but with a small number of contributing funders, perhaps the police focus should be higher up the chain?
Hmm, I don’t know.
First of all, let me make it clear that I don’t like the virtue signaling climate protestor bunch at all. If they cause obstruction to roads or vandalize paintings, they should be arrested.
But… 20 police officers arresting 6 women? Who were sitting at a table talking?
Even if they were talking about potentially disruptive actions, there is something disproportionate about this.
Compare their treatment to that of BLM. Was anybody arrested then? I seem to remember our beloved PM and his cheap slapper looking sidekick falling on their knees.
Also, on the basis of a group of people sitting at a table discussing things, the police could potentially arrest anybody. I can’t help feeling this is a massive overreach on some extremely dodgy grounds.
”our beloved PM and his cheap slapper looking sidekick”
Love it! But yes it is disproportionate but then the police like displays like this. Maybe they wrongly think that by showing force it’ll make them look good, stopping possible crime. Except they aren’t looking good because arresting six women with 20 officers is easy and they do like doing the easy stuff. The catching burglars, muggers and terrorists, that’s the hard stuff.
In slight mitigation we could assume that they didn’t know how many people were there and that it was only 6 women but still reeks overkill.
Perhaps the police were uncertain of the numbers present and who they were. Women can be quite violent when they want to be (but they always get a free pass ‘the gentler sex’ my arse) And the cops would need plenty of witnesses (other officers and their body cameras) to ensure they weren’t accused of groping or sexual assault, as is the way of these types of femae nut jobs. And they have experience of dealing with such groups. They’d know that because of their non cooperative tactics, that they’d need several officers to remove them. It takes at least three to safely carry a recalcitrant communist bitch out of a building.
Oh yes, of course. Those highly dangerous and violent women, most likely armed with knives ( it’s common knowledge we like to pop a blade in our handbags before we leave the house so we can embark on random stabbing-sprees of passersby who might look at us the wrong way ), as many media reports as well as actual data support…Also, which of those four men arrested for shitting in a pond do you think behaved in a ‘logical’, as opposed to ’emotional’ manner? Feel free to support your usual hateful, misogynist claptrap and delusional ramblings with actual evidence at any time. I won’t wait…
”There are approximately equal numbers of men and women in the population as a whole, but
The proportion of female offenders compared to male offenders has shrunk in the last five years. In 2017 26% of offenders were female. In 2021 only 21% of offenders were female.
Men commit more crime than women in almost all categories of crime. As a general rule men commit a higher proportion of more serious crimes. For example:
The most equal in terms of gender are fraud offences and summary non-motoring offences. Men commit 74% of fraud offences and 66% of summary non-motoring offences.”
https://revisesociology.com/2021/06/13/gender-and-crime-statistics/
Yep, reality bites like a mother f**ker when you’re a delusional misogynist.
Feel free to refute me and bring your own supporting evidence showing women are in fact the bigger perpetrators of violent crimes to the table, though. Any time this side of Christmas would be good…
Or just continue hiding in the shadows like petulant crybabies that can’t handle it when the facts don’t support your narrative. I might have a spare pair of lady balls you can borrow around here somewhere….
Were they women, or were they “New” women, you know the ones with beards and balls…ummm
I agree.
Yes, good points, well put.
If you are interested in defending free speech then shouldn’t this piece have focused more on, the conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, which is in effect an incitement to a form of violence, and therefore also a repression of other views. I don’t care so much about their nut job views apart from whether they are reciprocating in allowing a commmon space, language and practice for other views. We do have to practice what we preach. This is uncomfortable at times, but also underlines the need for a well defined and defended commonwealth space. It needs more and clearer thoughts.
One aspect of the common space should be a reliance on objective scientific truth and logic. The internationalists have hijacked this with barely legal or illegal protest; but where is the legal line if the other side of their work is lawfare which seeks to move those lines .
Is it true that Le Penn was caught on a law which had only recently gone through the French parliament?
It is very vague and almost every party will have done the same. Using someone working for the EU to collect a colleague can get caught up in embezzlement. It’s an easy catch-all and a common tactic when the Left can’t win an election on a level playing field.
All Religions are evil ideologies designed to control people’s minds, and make powerful those who deliver such bullshit.
Christianity may have some redeeming features, but sympathy for your enemies and over emotionality are its worst traits.
Down with islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Etc. Up with common sense.
There are no gods and there is no hell. Just be kind where it is deserved and be harsh where it is needed to protect your family and your people.
On what basis do you call something evil if there is no absolute standard. The answer would be who ever is in charge calls it, that is some form of authoritarian might is right. We all no what bullshit such people have come up with. A bit more common sense please, come let us reason together says the Lord in Isaiah.
An argument over what the truth is requires a common neutral space in which to have it . An argument over the power to enforce a common truth is quite different, and respects no common space.
The not so late Christopher Hitchens would agree with you, but don’t we risk letting Islam (that is far worse IMO) get a foot in the door, or maybe they have already kicked in an open door thanks to out Globalist/Marxist leaders.
Thank you, Chief Inspector Pile, for another forensic article.
Much to unpack, but just to limit to – instead of “fossil-fuel”, please consider using “hydrocarbon,” the chemical descriptor of what comes out of gas pipeline and petrol pump.
Nature’s bounty of portable, high-density 24/7/365 energy, that, along with coal (the real fossil-fuel), in three centuries has lifted the developed world out of feudal squalor, and could do the same for Africa, if left to its own devices by the UN, green billionaires and generalised do-gooders.
Providing humanity doesn’t give up on looking, enough bounty to keep humanity going into a future well beyond 2050, and a real-world energy-transition to the bounty of the atom. Electrons, protons and neutrons of the world unite.
I don’t think I am “fooled”, but from what I have read on the matter, the response seems excessive. I am uncomfortable about actions like this on the basis of suspected conspiracies.
Yes especially when so many come true, or at least what the Governments says is true turns out to be false. Something is only true when it has been officially denied.
The best way to deal with these people is to laugh at them until they crumble and then ignore them as they disappear.
“XR’s Westminster bridge-blocking had seemingly caused Parliament to declare a ‘climate emergency’, convene a ‘climate assembly’ and commit to Net Zero”
BS…..We know where this comes from. The UN AGENDA 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Did XR influence the head of the UN to push the Global Boiling narrative, pull the other one. Maybe if the police did their job and dragged them off the roads in the first place, instead of offering them tea and biscuits we wouldn’t know much about them.
Let’s not bash all Quakers over this. The Quakers count among their number the likes of William Penn and Richard Nixon.
I disagree with them but people have a right to protest. Things will get pretty tasty when the farmers really start to dig in. Of course their protests are based on a real threat, not some fantasy but from the point of view of a normie, that can seem relative.
If farmers start to have secret meetings to discuss disruption, I would be uneasy at the police crashing through the door, to stop them.
I was waiting out side a FREEMASON building the other day watching them all go in. My mate thought they were all funeral directors until I pointed out the sign. There was no symbol, just an old Masons plaque on the front. They say it’s the buggers at the top they you have to watch, the 33rd degree.
“55 Tufton Street”… Is it time for the devilish address to come under Godwin’s Law?
Yes, a tricky one. I’m glad that plod are cracking down on this crowd, and that they are receiving the same ‘justice’ as others have enjoyed. However, I’m uncomfortable with the jack boots of the state, crushing people who are only discussing ideas, and not actually planning anything more than that.
They were planning more than that. As the article explained, they planned to continue in the style of XR/JSO, which it already has a track record of, having caused criminal damage to the Labour Party’s HQ.
“The organisation has drawn attention to itself from the police (but apparently not journalists and commentators) for being the inheritor of the XR-JSO style of direct action. The group’s website claims that in April it will follow the footsteps of its forebears by shutting down London, again, with swarms of roadblocks.”
I also posted a screenshot of the group’s website.
They were not merely ‘discussing ideas’. If they were, I would have had nothing to say.
Are people reading the same article? Or just the headline?
How does anyone know what they were discussing at the time, or what they planned, exactly?
Did you not read the article?
I did. Perhaps I am thick. Is there a recording or minutes of what was discussed at this meeting? Or is the “evidence” that it was a meeting that involved a group who advocate “direct action”?
As the article explains…
1. The group’s website says that it is going to shut down London’s streets in April, in the style of XR/JSO.
2. The group advertised their meeting as an event where their plans to shut down London’s streets for a month would be discussed with guests who were interested.
3. One of the arrestees explained that she attended the event hoping to learn about how she could be involved in the action.
4. The group already has a history of direct action — i.e. criminal damage.
I.e. …
1. “We’re going to do a crime.”
2. “Please come and help us do a crime.”
3. “I wanted to come and do a crime with you.”
4. “We’ve done lots of crimes in the past.”
No need for recordings or minutes. The intention is spelled out by the activists, all by themselves. In the same way, evidence of plotting to import cocaine or to murder someone is sufficient to investigate and charge people with conspiracy, even if they have not yet committed those actions.
Thanks. So is this section a reference to this specific meeting?
“On the Youth Demand X account an unnamed young woman wearing a keffiyeh admitted as much. “I went to a publicly advertised Youth Demand event,” she explains. “This was a welcome talk, where everyone was welcome to come and hear who we are as a campaign, come and hear the plan in April.” Subsequently, six were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.”
That wasn’t clear to me.
I am not convinced that past history should necessarily be a big factor in justifying this kind of action. My preference would have been for them to be warned that deliberate obstruction is not legal and goes beyond “protest”, and then if they engage in deliberate obstruction when the time comes, to take the necessary action – arrest people and remove the obstruction, and convict them accordingly (jury permitting…). The action taken seems like something of an own goal to me.
The police gave them hugs and cups of tea when they were JSO and blocked motorways.
Whether or not pre-emptive policing in an attempt to stop clearly committed criminals from causing material harm to millions of people is justified is besides the point.
They weren’t merely sitting around, shooting the breeze, and pondering some ‘what ifs’, as your earlier argument intimated.
Now you are switching your argument to one of broader justification, from material fact.
Well I certainly don’t agree with hugs and cups of tea.
I am not sure my earlier argument intimated anything of the sort.
I am just very wary of this kind of thing and because I don’t trust the state I would err on the side of caution, even if those involved are a pretty despicable bunch in my book. But equally your view that there is a distinction to be made is not implausible by any means.
Would you trust the state to investigate other crimes, as discussed?
The import of hard drugs? Murder? Terrorism?
What’s so different about the very clearly stated intention to inflict material harm on millions of people, in order to achieve political change?
What would “erring on the side of caution” look like?
I don’t have much choice regarding trusting the state. I have come round to thinking hard drugs should be legalised but that’s an argument for another day. Murder certainly should be investigated. Terrorism seems to be in the eye of the beholder these days – conspiracy to commit murder should certainly be investigated. I think planned protests are a grey area. Erring on the side of caution would look like warning people talking about “shutting things down” that deliberate obstruction is illegal and people will be removed, arrested and charged.
You seem quite angry that I am not as outraged as you are Ben. I did the read article, and noted your evidence eg:
That is why the police paid its activists a visit at the Quaker Meeting House. It wasn’t a meeting for Quakers to do Quaking. It was a meeting to organise and recruit people into a style of protest that is now widely regarded as pushing ‘peaceful protest’ beyond any reasonable definition.
I’m just not as convinced as you are that the police acted in the right way on this occasion.
In your expression of your view that you are not as “convinced as [me] that the police acted in the right way on this occasion”, you claim that the Police were “crushing people who are only discussing ideas, and not actually planning anything more than that”.
That is manifestly false. And that is why I asked if you had read the article, which explains that they were indeed planning more than that.
So either you misread, or your misrepresent in order to make a claim about my argument. Yes, that is irritating indeed.
Yep, angry and triggered. I’m not trying to misrepresent you at all. I’m merely saying that the case you make for justifying police heavy handedness, doesn’t wash with me. That’s all. You can continue to insult me all you like, water off a duck’s mate. Or you can accept that sometimes people disagree with you, and move on.
It looks like it is you who is sensitive about being confronted with your own error.
I commented here because I wondered if the piece had failed to anticipate your claim that the activists were “only discussing ideas, and not actually planning anything more than that”, since the entire point of the piece is to show that they were indeed planning more than that.
It’s only possible that you either misread or misrepresent. What else is there? You’re not “merely saying that the case you make for justifying police heavy handedness doesn’t wash with” you, you claimed that the activists had NOT done something which they manifestly HAD done.
The material facts are distinct from the moral judgment. But you alter the material facts.
If you want to claim — which is the most generous interpretation of your words I can muster — that plotting a direct action is ‘free speech’ and ‘free association’ until the moment it becomes an action, then you should make that claim, not alter the facts.
But on that basis, as I explained to ToF, organising a shipment of cocaine or plotting a murder is not a crime until the cocaine transaction is complete, or the victim is murdered. It clearly makes sense for Police to investigate *conspiracy*, rather than wait for criminal acts to be fully commissioned.
Wow! you really don’t like being challenged do you Ben. You can write as many long winded paragraphs as you like, there is still a qualitative difference between the serious crimes you raise above (murder), and the conspiracy that the people in question are accused of (disruption, criminal damage). And it therefore follows that the police response in this instance, was disproportionate, in my opinion.
It is you who is personalising a challenge to your claim with personal commentary and bullshit.
The distinction you raise is one without a difference: the principle being articulated is that a conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. And you had to deny that the conspiracy had occurred in order to make the argument that you have eventually arrive at: about ‘disproportionality’, which is now qualified only in your opinion, not on the facts of the case.
Fine, that it was merely only in your opinion that the intervention was disproportionate. But then if you want to air it, give your opinion the substance of an argument. Don’t make stuff up. Don’t have a tantrum about it, while accusing others of being hostile to criticism. You sound like an eco-Quaker!
What is a proportionate Police response to activists who are explicitly, self-evidently, recruiting and organising a month of campaigns that will prevent millions of people going to hospital appointments, getting to work, carrying out lawful and essential business, and potentially causing many £Millions of economic damage and for sure many £millions more in policing costs?
Pull your neck in buddy.
you had to deny that the conspiracy had occurred
These people may well have been making plans for protests, but criminal conspiracy has not occurred. These people have NOT been convicted of conspiracy, and so have not committed any crime. They haven’t even been charged.
You talk of material facts, but as far as I know, you were not part of the police team who planned this raid. So how do you know what facts they considered, and what their objectives were.
Had the police been seeking convictions for conspiracy, they would have charged these people. This was just a publicity stunt; sending a message to the miscreants that any of their future nonsense won’t be tolerated.
They chose overkill to send their message; it’s plain to see. And it is that, which I have some concerns over. I am reminded of how badly the Southport protestors (and numerous others), have been treated, which has made me wary of the police, even when they act against people I profoundly disagree with.
In any case, I don’t give a shit what facts or logic you produce, quote Archbold if you like, I don’t care. My principle gripe with your piece, is that you think the raid was justified, and I have reservations about it.
That’s all!! I only have reservations about it!!! Yet even mild reservations have triggered you. You have then gone on to imply that I am some kind of eco nut. I almost infer that you are a bully, who can’t stand to be contradicted. If you can’t handle mild disagreement, why do you contribute to a public forum.
And no, I have no intention of writing an essay on how the police should behave in these circumstances, so don’t try and lead me down that path. I have made my position clear. But if the DS wants to pay me, I will happily write an article, where I will deal with your points in a considered, referenced and forensic manner.
Consider this and tell me this wasn’t an exercise in intimidation:
A spokesperson for Quakers in Britain said that the raid took place shortly before 7.15 p.m. More than 20 uniformed police officers, some carrying tasers, broke through the door of Westminster Meeting House, without ringing the bell first.
One of the women who were arrested told The Sunday Times: “An officer grabbed my arm, turned me around to face the wall and placed me in handcuffs. Some of the others were sitting down, not doing anything, not resisting, and they were also put in cuffs.”
She said that she was held in police custody for more than 12 hours without being able to make a call, before being released without charge.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/4-april/news/uk/police-raid-on-westminster-quaker-meeting-house-sparks-criticism
Ooh I’d say there’s a fair few people on here that “can’t stand to be contradicted.” Trouble is, in my experience anyway, they seldom get back to me and aren’t exactly forthcoming in offering any supporting evidence of their own, so it gets a bit one-sided and tedious, all this give-give-give, and never any reciprocation. Hardly constitutes a debate, does it?
Probably due to them having nothing in the tank and recognising when they’ve been owned. They just revert to type and predictably hide behind 
- the symbol of the coward. But what can you do?
Fragile egos, the Misogynist Society.
Anyway, I’m sure Ben will at least get back to you and I’m not implying he’s a misogynist. Just to be clear…
“In any case, I don’t give a shit what facts or logic you produce…”
QED.
Without wishing to enter into every point of your ding dong back and forth with Mr Pile, I share your reservations.
We are all broadly on the same side here, but free speech and the right to protest are very important and I think it’s prudent to question anything that might curtail those things – but equally it’s not unreasonable to not want to give carte blanche to what is basically antisocial behaviour of an extreme form.
I don’t mind the down ticks. Is this because I am wrong in my reticence over the police raid, and that the eco lot have got away with it for far too long, and now is the time to crush them, before they re-emerge to make our lives a misery.
I first came across the Quakers (other than in history lessons) after I had been ‘politicised’ by the Cuba Missile Crisis. And, no doubt, by some communist propaganda.
Meetings of the CND and Committee of 100 were usually held at a Friends Meeting House. But note that “Demos” back then were resolutely non-violent and that even the annual Aldermaston March collaborated with the police to try to minimise inconvenience to motorists and pedestrians, Even the Committee’s more militant protests attempted to block access to USAAF bases rather than the main road.
Along with Bertram Russell, Ghandi was the inspiration.
Many years later, my Elder Sister and her family were drawn to the Quakers and I have consequently attended a few meetings of the Quakers themselves. Marriages, funerals etc.
In the early 2000s I was asked by York’s then Labour MP to come to a Friends Meeting House discussion on Israel & Palestine.
When my wife and I turned up, the meeting was exclusively packed with Arabs and English sympathisers.
When speakers denounced any “two state” solution and started chanting “From the River to the Sea”, we walked out.
The Quakers were originally a revolutionary sect. Today they comprise of a whole assortment of theologies and beliefs; deist, non-deist, humanist and everything in between.
If you visit Brighton, take a walk past the Meeting House. On the notice board there is an announcement that there is no migrant crisis. The crisis is one of wealth disparity, they assert. Of course, they don’t mention the wealth disparity in Third World countries between the small strata of the very rich (and the very corrupt, if their rulers) and most other people who are dirt poor.
Filling children’s heads with ‘doom-laden bull****’ is by no means confined to the formerly silent gatherings of the Friends. Again, pay a visit to Eastbourne’s famous 1930s art deco bandstand. In the process of being renovated, the inside walls are covered in reproductions of local schoolchildren’s poems and artwork about the environment, principally the sea. The despondency and hopelessness that pervades all of these is evidence of what they have been taught in their schools.
In my experience the Quakers don’t believe that envy is a deadly sin. I remember the kickback when the Rowntree’s sold out to Nestle. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that all the grand old Quaker business families have left the faith. In the past the Quakers nominated Greta Thunberg for the Nobel peace prize.
So… they’ll be getting their porridge elsewhere supplied by His Majesty.
Speech is a freedom, action that encroaches on the freedoms of others, causes damage to public or private property is not.
Apart from anything else 20 police seems way over the top. It speaks as much of police incompetence and lack of intelligence. And the fact they like easy targets. As for the Quakers they have no coherent ideas about anything and tend to offer the worst kind of pick and mix DIY religion for people who want to look spiritual but not be in any way self critical. Generally in my experience dominated by busybody well heeled divorced older women. In many ways they represent the spirit of the BBC Guardian elite.
Sadly, Quakers became leftist political actors many years ago although there are groups that call themselves “classical” and limit themselves to their traditional form of worship.