Mermaids Job advert

I always google people during recruitment. Social media presence has definitely put me off some people who were in final stages of interview.

My work while rather niche technical, requires integrity, political awareness and clients often search up the people I hire. My work, being niche, is not under the spotlight anything like as much as Mermaids today and nowhere near the levels of scrutiny it will face in coming weeks and months.

Their demand for social media to be scrutinised seems normal for such a high profile controversial organisation.

Mind you, if they hire someone with dodgy furry crap going on or blatent homophobia they won't be able to claim they had no idea later. Though they probably will identify as Teflon when heat is applied.

Checking social media accounts is a tricky one imo.

On the one hand, I'd be outraged to be asked to supply this information and would almost certainly refuse.

OTOH it's not a bad idea to weed out dodgy applicants.

Of course whether mermaids are looking to weed out dodgy applicants or bad faith applicants or applicants who have liked the wrong tweet is anyone's guess.

DD1 has recently applied for a teaching assistant job, not in the UK. She had to supply her social media. She's a very sparing user of social media anyway but she unfollowed me on a twitter in advance of sending in the information as she said she couldn't risk being seen to follow me although that might have been a handy excuse since she has graduated with a degree in wokery.

Thing is, I think we can all agree that there are some people in safeguarding sensitive jobs who need their hard drives looking at. On the other hand the big brother side of it appalls me. And of course any sensible applicant will do as DD did and have deleting purge before submitting.

Jake Edwards isn't the rubber wankman. Jake Edwards is the transman employed by Mermaids who had a youtube video all about the different objects Jake had shoved up Jake's anus.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3687865-Just-when-you-think-Mermaids-cant-get-any-worse

The youtube video was made private after we started discussing it on here.

Somebody reading this needs to apply for that sharpish. Fascinating.

*vetting

This isn't about rubber wankman-sifting dear vipers, it's about us. It's to make sure no applicant has ever pressed like on JK Rowling or similar.

They don't care about dodgy connections or dubious morals. They don't give a crap about actual safeguarding, remember? They're getting for wrong think. You don't actually think they're checking to see that any prospective employee is a sensible person do you?

Let's face it, NSPCC rubber man wasn't very careful to hide it, was he. Surely most self respecting rubber men could do better than that? How did Jess Bradley get busted, was Jess doxxed?

I think possibly they want to screen out liabilities, but also moles.

I wonder what their diversity and inclusion clause is like. Any benefits?

I think they want to screen out any more rubbermen. It’s not a good look for a children’s charity. They wouldn’t have concluded that on their own but Tesco won’t like it

Are they vetting for WrongThink?

If you follow the wrong person or like the wrong tweet I guess you're out of contention. But anyone promising to Punch A Terf...?

Part of the job will be monitoring Mumsnet. It's part of their Comms strategy to demonise Mumsnet and the wrong crowd feminism that Munroe Bergdorf claims is all about having a uterus. Having read their incoherent nonsense in GQ about this don't expect any improvement soon.
Jake Edwards also wants to see the “spousal veto” removed. “If you are married and your spouse decides that they don’t want you to change your name, or not get legal recognition as your gender, they can veto the whole process,” he explained. “So, say you’re in the process of maybe getting divorced from someone who did come out to you as an accepted you. They can stop you from being legally recognised.”
www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/transgender-meaning

But if then something crawls out of the woodwork like rubber wankman, then they know that The Times or The Spectaor (and Mumsnet of course) will help to shine that spotlight.

I love the response tweet from someone asking whether they can work remotely as it's for the London office.

"Just identify as someone living in London."

So basically if you dont supply all links to any social media accounts you could get the job and then lose it.

Thank goodness I grew up in an age when we wrote in our diaries. Can you imagine sending in your diaries as part of your job application!

Unfortunately in relation to this job I am sure there are far too many rainbow warriors who will be able to supply links to online accounts where they have daily repeated the mantra for the day. ie qualification for the post is to be a clone.

I wish I had the balls (no pun intended) to apply. I'm pretty sure I could outline my plans in 500 words.

Does Helen still work there? Will she be mentoring this young trailblazer?

Probably checking applicants are not obsessive Mumsnet monitors.

They cannot fatham that not everybody has social media.

I mean, how would you cancel somebody? Where would the Sonic the Lobster Transphobe memes go? And how could you post your Paypal details for those 'top surgery' donations?

What if you have no social media? Are they checking you are not a vile racist or are they checking that you repeat the relevant mantras?

Wow, not wish. Hideous new phone.