Very convenient first choice. I’m sure the Tory-led government will be pleased.
Dave – the home office is surely part of the civil service, thus independent of government as employers. The current government therefore, or the previous shower of Sh*te for that matter, can’t necessarily take any credit for this.
Can you never be happy about any progress we make in this world? It;s just one conspiracy theory after another on this bloody site!
´Progress`? Really? Well, nice to know that the Home Office has been named as the best place for lesbian, gay and bisexual people to work..
Shame though that due to the current Governments latest cuts, job vacancies in ALL areas of the civil service will be almost non-existent anyway!
Charging people to put them on a list is just about all Ben Summerskill’s Stonewall is good for!
Entry is free, Helen
Well this is according to Stonewall.
Cosidering that Stonewall is opposed to LGBT equality then I’d hardly consider their opinion very important.
Can Pink News determine how many of the Top 100 are corporate sponsors of Stonewall.
last year’s list was an utter joke – all that Stonewall seem to require for inclusion on the list is a financial contribution.
David – how do you justify your remark “Stonewall is opposed to LGBT equality” Stonewall does not campaign on transgender issues, but fights – effectively in my view – for LGB equality. Your carping is strange. Justify.
pink news anti stonewall – YAWN
With Stonewall’s objectionable record on gay marriage and the slithery way it sucks up to corrupt politicians, surely the objective of any gay-friendly organization is to AVOID appearing on any of their so-called “best of” lists?
As a jobseeker, my view of this list is extremely jaundiced. I feel inclusion and placement has more to do with donation and lip-service rather than genuine company-wide equality or diversity, having experienced some of these so-called top employers’ homophobia. No, I will not be using this list to select the companies to work for.
while the HO may be more “gay-friendly”, various tentacles of its diverse activities aren’t: consider the institutional homophobia of the immigration and asylum branch
“David – how do you justify your remark “Stonewall is opposed to LGBT equality”
The leader of Stonewall – Ben Summerskill was caught last summer at the Lib Dem party conference campaigning against the inclusion of marriage equality as official LibDem policy.
Despite this grotesque behaviour he has kept his job.
Stonewall (in response to the tidal wave of disgust at Summerskill’s homophobia) then claimed that they now do support marriage equality. But they have done NOTHING about it. They have not even updated their website to say that they support LGBT marriage equality.
And this list – the Home Office is the most gay friendly emplioyer?
Who’s the head of the Home Office?
Oh yes Theresa May – the Home Secretary?
Remind me again why the equalities brief was removed from her remit before she was appointed?
Oh yes – it was decided that a Home Secretary such as May, who had a shamefully homophobic voting record, could not be trusted to deal with equalities.
Stonewall is the most pathetic excise for an LGBT equality group. It really is a joke.
Oh and to the poster who said that Pink News is anti-Stonewall. Well not in this instance. it is the posters responding to this stosy who have contempt for Stonewall.
David, of course PInkNews is anti-Stonewall. It’s entitled to be. That’s the virtue of a free media.
From my own knowledge, the list process does produce an effect on the companies on it (and there are quite a few that don’t make the top 100). How do I know – well for one thing I accompanied the designated member of the Board to a Stonewall event and we discussed the issues and problems around achieving a gay-friendly working environment. Also, the position on the list is not a walk in the park; my Department worked its way up from 70-something to 50-something, then 40-something and now into the top 10. At each stage the areas which the surveys had revealed as areas of weakness were itemised by Stonewall and my Department addressed them so far as it could. Ministers had nothing or very little to do with this, save that the last Government had a number who cheered on the achievements.
The contributions towards administration costs made by employers to Stonewall for consideration are paltry – do you think employers got Investors in People accreditation for free?
I find this carping against Stonewall destructive – yes, it is not especially accountable to the LGB public, and yes Ben Summerskill is human and has a modest tendency towards autocracy which the trustees might do well to try to curb, but it is a lot better than the dithering organisations that preceded it. As to cozying up to the City, yes it does in a way, and comes across also a bit to me as London-centric, but the results are there to be seen: City firms competing to be top of their sector (and boy, can City firms be competitive). Having made a lot of headway there, Stonewall could now usefully focus on the likes of Swindons, Wigans, and Swanseas where ‘diversity’ is thought to refer to some football team.