Looks like the National Lottery and Stonewall have picked a side in the cotton ceiling debate

That article is terrifying

No safeguarding at all.

A de transitioned lesbian who attended a youth group run by Page has posted this concerning account of Page's lack of appropriate boundaries and disregard for safeguarding:

4thwavenow.com/2019/01/26/my-trans-youth-group-experience-with-morgan-page/

So, the “cotton ceiling” is a campaign to get some women to allow people they find repellent, to fuck them. Hmm.

£500,000 may not be enough!

I don't agree that anyone going into schools to do anything should have to be DBS checked. I do agree that materials should be checked before they are used in front of children - but that is the great success of organisations like Mermaids, isn't it? They get to use the logos of the places that fund them (Department for Education, National Lottery) and the other places where they have delivered training (police forces, FTSE100 companies etc etc) and you can forgive anyone for not thinking that their materials will b full of regressive jelly baby crap

Interesting how that pick up artist from USA was banned from entry but this equivalent 'trainer' is getting lottery funding via Stonewall.

Trans are trying to memory hole the cotton ceiling thing hosted by Planned Parenthood Toronto.

They forgot about Wayback Machine.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120722002609/pleasureandpossibilities.com/programming/workshop-descriptions" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20120722002609/pleasureandpossibilities.com/programming/workshop-descriptions

"The Stonewall CEO, Ruth Hunt, has a dig at Get the L Out, which is (I think) a group of six, (maybe eight?) peaceful, lesbian protestors at London Pride in 2018 who lay down in the road for a short while at the start of the Pride march, then peacefully marched along with everyone else."

Thank you for the reminder MsVanillaRose, it was indeed a brave and peaceful protest.

The only response I have seen mentioned so far is the Lotterys response to Bernard's FOI request.
It is about halfway down this thread.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3481426-Mermaids-and-the-Lottery-are-they-hoping-well-forget

"The Stonewall CEO, Ruth Hunt, has a dig at Get the L Out, which is (I think) a group of six, (maybe eight?) peaceful, lesbian protestors at London Pride in 2018 who lay down in the road for a short while at the start of the Pride march, then peacefully marched along with everyone else."

You misspelt: "Tried to hijack a specifically LGBT+ event with the specific intention of making people who had every right to be there feel unwelcome and unsafe."

Yep - nothing's point is the reasoning behind it and is the current state of play. But I do think, as many of you suggest, that there needs to be more of a duty of care for those who are coming in to do SRE - we should be holding them to a far higher standard. We can't just leave it up to schools alone because it would be quite easy for inappropriate people/material to get in; schools do like recommendations from other schools. We also can't tie schools to a package bought in by the MAT or LA, dictated from on high. I think any training ing materials should at the very least be open to scrutiny and that scrutiny done regularly. I used to think Bish was pretty good a couple of years ago, going off their Twitter feed. Now I know better, and it's not that long ago.

"I expected that an individual speaking on behalf of a well funded organisation that regularly gives talks to schools should have at least a basic DBS, and cant see any good reason for them not to. "

You see Idon't agree with this.

I am AOK with eg a parent or someone with an interesting job or a local figure or an author or whatever coming in to give a talk. If they are never alone with the children then that's fine.

DBS check wont' stop schools inviting people who talk bollocks will it.

I think it could be very restrictive and have unforseen consequences if everyone to enter a school had to have a DBS.

Don't disagree that Mermaids shouldnt' be peddling their sexist homophobic bullshit to little kids obviously. That wouldn't stop them though.

Indeed chatty, silence from Stonewall on the inaccuracies supposedly contained in the articles is hardly a convincing refutation.

The new sex ed guidelines (consultation just finished) puts the onus on schools to check the credentials of all visiting speakers. If a school allows any adult to speak directly to children about sex, sexuality, relationships, drug use, identity etc then that school had better be very certain that the speaker hasn't a published history of celebrating porn, flashing, public involvement with fetishes, involvement with pedophiles, promoting under age sex, personal drug use etc.
Teachers are expected to "avoid conflict between their professional
work and private interests which could reasonably be deemed to impact negatively on pupils/students" (Code of Professional Conduct). It seems reasonable to expect anyone wishing to influence both children or educators to abide by the same standards.

Also if the fact that DBS checks aren't being done in specific situations becomes public knowledge then predators will be taking note of it. There are lots of things "trainings" could be done on, they'd just have to find a subject that schools would go for.

Yes. Any chinks in the armour are ripe for exploitation.

When a school permits a speaker to come in they give them legitimacy.
I expected that an individual speaking on behalf of a well funded organisation that regularly gives talks to schools should have at least a basic DBS, and cant see any good reason for them not to.
I didn't know they were optional.

Also if the fact that DBS checks aren't being done in specific situations becomes public knowledge then predators will be taking note of it. There are lots of things "trainings" could be done on, they'd just have to find a subject that schools would go for.

SilentCrow re my DBS remarks. It's not so much that I fear the possibility of inappropriate contact with children during the school visit, though I absolutely believe that some nearly all of the discussion material is likely to be inappropriate. But a DBS does at least act as a very basic haven't been caught yet method of screening out persons unsuitable for the role of schools champion.
If schools are not able to scrutinise the "teaching" material that is going to be used (maybe they are? Or maybe just those doing due diligence do so?) then they pretty much have free rein to ramble on about whatever rubbish they like during the presentation and it's not easy to police once they have warmed to the theme as the tape of the Mermaids teaching session shows.

Comments were all very supportive of the article, pointing out that Stonewall has lost its way.

One tiny personal silver lining for me - although I don't buy lottery tickets regularly, I occasionally get tempted by an odd ticket. That temptation is now truly gone. No matter how big the jackpot I can now walk past without any hesitation.

I’m also wondering about comments which I can’t see- were they in support of the article? I’ve seen a fb comment on Women’s lives matter about this article - detailing what Aimee challenor has been getting up to which I expect will be swiftly deleted

This is it, the masks have come off, 'Poor me' isn't working and they've got nothing else.

Can anyone explain why The Times have deleted & closed the comments on this article? I can understand the mods deleting offensive comments but why are the whole lot pulled? thanks

Dear god, the comments on Gilligan's twitter thread. I'm used to seeing unhinged TRAs say those things to dissenting women, but it's still a bit of a shock to see them doing it in plain sight and aiming it at a senior male journalist.

He's doing the right thing in not responding, and I hope he keeps it that way. And that the general public gets to see the malevolent, manipulative rage that's unleashed when TRAs are challenged.

(I also hope Gilligan knew this was coming and was mentally prepared for it.)

No mention at the BBC, ITN, Ch4 or the Guardian?

None of the MPs whispering into ears saying anything?