Northumbria University - Sarah Phillimore and Harry Miller 'seen as a 'safety and wellbeing' risk to an entire university.'

I have made entirely reasonable inferences from her open letter. She does not disavow her association with Fair Cop and states that their communications constitute "protected political speech and/or the expression of a belief protected pursuant to the Equality Act 2010"

Dishonesty is all they have.

Are they though? They never informed the recipient their mail was being censored. I'm not sure they can act in such a cavalier way without justification. I'd like to see this before a court of law.

You've used the wording of what someone else has 'asserted' she has done and pretending that she is 'proud' to 'advocate' for it, despite those words not appearing in the text, then pretending you didn't change it and were 'taking it at face value'.

We can all see you're doing it. I'm not engaging with dishonesty any further.

There was no illegal interception of her emails; the university is entitled to act as they did and don't have to give a legal justification for it to her.

She was invited to attend. Someone illegally intercepted and deleted her communications. How come YOU can't see a problem?

I have copied part of her open letter.

She then goes on to explain that it should not be considered problematic that she is proud to be a member of Fair Cop who advocate this as:

"All of this activity on behalf of Fair Cop is confirmed as protected political speech and/or the expression of a belief protected pursuant to the Equality Act 2010."

I can't imagine that the University cares less. It is rightly concerned with student well-being and I can see why they are worried about giving a platform to someone who appears to be happy to associate with a group who are keen to publish such sentiment.

Does she think she has a right to be given a platform? Why would she?! I don't. My dog doesn't. I don't see why anyone would feel they have a personal, inherent right to a platform.

I don't understand what you mean by this. You wrote the sentence "Fair Cop who advocate: hashtag #SayYesToHate on 'days of LGBTQ significance". What is the thing you are taking at face value? Have you by any chance copied part of some text but not posted relevant context?

I think you've either misunderstood or are dishonestly pretending to, suggestions.

What? Never!

I'm taking that at face value...is there a reason that most people would not?

Yes. We have been told that another employee may have the right to intercept and act upon content of communications directed to us as employees. I imagine this follows particular guidelines rather than being a free for all, but my understanding is that an organisation has the right to do that.

Fair Cop who advocate:

hashtag #SayYesToHate on 'days of LGBTQ significance'.*

I think you've either misunderstood or are dishonestly pretending to, suggestions.

Employees at my educational establishment have been made aware that physical or electronic mail directed to us may be opened by another member of staff.

Instead of the intended recipient?

So she is proud to be a member of Fair Cop who advocate:

hashtag #SayYesToHate on 'days of LGBTQ* significance'.

Just wow. I think that University was very right to be concerned.

I don't really follow this; why does she think she has an automatic right for her email communication to connect with an individual employee, presumably at their staff address and not their personal address?

That's not a foregone right, is it?

Employees at my educational establishment have been made aware that physical or electronic mail directed to us may be opened by another member of staff.

Irrespective of content I had thought this was pretty generally known that organisations can act in this way.

It's enough to make a cat laugh. They're picking on a barrister and an ex copper, it's utterly laughable. I can't wait to follow the fallout from this latest shitshow on Twitter. Idiots.

How is this not a huge breach of GDPR? If an email accidentally ends up going to someone to whom it's not intended that can be a breach, particularly if containing information (I believe even a name) where there is no reason to share that information. Since Ms Phillimore addressed the email to one person and it ended up going to another (without her consent or knowledge), that's a clear and intentional breach of the law, surely?

Working behind the curtain, piggybacking on some other social justice movement (self-ID bundled with same sex marriage in legalisation, say), and being funded by a handful of very very rich trans activists.

I'm not convinced that the very very rich people behind the curtain are actually trans activists. I think trans people are unknowingly being used as cats' paws by these people. I can't say what sort of people I believe them to be because it would just get deleted. I do think they have an interest in eroding safeguarding though.

I am curious about the timeline on the changes in universities, too. The concept of 'safe' spaces began in the 1970s in the US at some colleges, as actual rooms for gay and Lesbian and bisexual students to retreat to and to be confident that nobody would harass them there. But then it somehow spread into everything and I have been unable to find out how and why that happened.

Decades later the concept of 'safe spaces' was interpreted to mean that no challenging debate could be undertaken if specific groups of students would be harmed by it. What, exactly, harm consists of is unclear, but mostly it seems to be just feeling bad or upset, i.e., it doesn't mean that there would be slurs aimed at the students in that group or that their physical safety would be at all endangered.

Much of this is still about the LGBTetc students, but similar arguments have been used concerning some other groups of students. Still, the LGBTetc appear to be the most powerful of the student groups in this context and the one that gets their way most often.

The worrying thing is that, just like in the US, we're increasingly going to find that "We All Live on Campus Now": web.archive.org/web/20220531191909/nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/02/we-all-live-on-campus-now.html

If you haven't, you should watch Benjamin Boyce's film about Evergreen College in the US.

How does the redirect of the emails work? And who authorised that? And is it just for Sarah or for other people? And who do they get redirected to? And who appointed them?

Exactly! When the hell did universities turn into places where there was no freedom of speech?

Can't wait to see the response.

That is the truly fascinating question. I've seen many possible but partial answers on the level of countries:

Working behind the curtain, piggybacking on some other social justice movement (self-ID bundled with same sex marriage in legalisation, say), and being funded by a handful of very very rich trans activists.

But then for years the question of transgender women in women's elite sports was discussed in committees and meetings where women were not invited at all, and this example, I think, is part of the explanation:

Almost all the negative consequences of these policies fall on the female sex, and most decision-makers everywhere are still predominantly of the male sex. Almost none of the harm would affect them directly and some of the changes actually benefit them.

When you add that to the virtue signaling you might get the kinds of examples we can observe in the academia, too, especially as the gender identity ideology states that women are privileged compared to trans women, so that it is the former who should always been viewed as the underdogs, even if the woman is, say, a black Lesbian.