Thread by @Womans_Place_UK

From the start, WPUK has faced smears, slurs, lies intended to discredit us. Our rebuttal to Pink News on the subject of the Lush grant womansplaceuk.org/2020/12/02/wpu…

We will not respond to all the half-baked claims and insinuations masquerading as journalism. Many errors could be avoided by diligent journalistic research. However, there are some falsehoods which must be corrected and we do so in this rebuttal. womansplaceuk.org/2020/12/02/wpu…

WPUK welcomed the statement made by Lush on 30 November about its grant to our campaign and we share the concerns expressed in that statement about the toxicity of debate. We have been on the receiving end of that toxicity since our inception.

Like Lush, we are very keen to see respectful debate. It is therefore disappointing that Lush has added to the toxicity of the discussion by making a further statement on 1 December in which they misrepresent our campaign.

We are very grateful to Lush for the generous grant of £3,000. This funding has helped us to ensure women’s voices have been heard in public debate. WPUK appreciates their clearly pluralist approach to grant giving at that time.

We respect the decision Lush has subsequently made not to fund “campaigning work, discussion or lobbying on the specifics of the proposed changes to the GRA”. It is, after all, not the responsibility of private companies or businesses to facilitate respectful public debate.

In the UK, public bodies have a duty to foster good relations between those with different protected characteristics, to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation prohibited by the Equality Act..

.. and to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

We intend to continue making sure that such bodies do their job.