Well done Attorney General

The rot does go deeper but at least the scale of the problem is being recognised. Emperor’s clothes and all that etc

I like the analogy to witch trials and reference to zealots -very true. But it’s going to take a lot to reverse what has already been imbedded.

That’s really interesting ResisterRex

a new religion with a new priestly caste

Absolutely. This is the (accurate) framing that people like @Glinner have been using for years. It’s good to hear it from politicians too now.

Mrs Braverman concludes: ‘We need to worry less about what people say on Twitter, and more about ensuring passports arrive on time, GP appointments are available when needed, and the police turn up when you’ve been burgled.’

something I think we can all get behind

Oh yes. If they can do it, it would be a vote winner. The rot goes deep though.

She [Braverman] says some believe in the cause and ‘don the outfit of the inquisitor and never tire of rooting out unbelievers’ but others simply ‘wear the priestly clothes to ward off their rivals’ or ‘nod along and recite the creed because they are too scared to dissent’

this is so true, and played out by the visitors we have here too

Mrs Braverman concludes: ‘We need to worry less about what people say on Twitter, and more about ensuring passports arrive on time, GP appointments are available when needed, and the police turn up when you’ve been burgled.’

something I think we can all get behind

I just hope that this edi crap is removed from Scotland too (I know wishful thinking)

Suella B and the rest aren't saying it as MPs but as government ministers. There's a substantial difference.

People are being paid by the taxpayer to invent a grotesque caricature of our culture - racist, homophobic, transphobic (but not sexist) - and then come up with ways in which people must do penance to be considered humble enough not to be bullied at work

Excellent analysis. I may steal it!

@sashagabadon

There needs to be a good awareness of legal responsibilities in government departments. That means the responsibility to make reasonable adjustments, and not to discriminate. That’s a matter of training in the provisions of the Equality Act and isn’t hard to put in place (and indeed is almost certainly already in place).

I agree it’s an industry that businesses can’t afford anymore with utility/ rent rises etc but I think for disability in particular there still needs to be a good awareness or it could get overlooked in policy making, design etc

‘How many times have MPs said this or that office must do xyz - including ditch Stonewall - and they just don't?’

Civil servants have a lot of power. It’s confusing to me.

Good news if she can actually make them do it. How many times have MPs said this or that office must do xyz - including ditch Stonewall - and they just don't?

The EDI industry is just that: an industry. People are being paid by the taxpayer to invent a grotesque caricature of our culture - racist, homophobic, transphobic (but not sexist) - and then come up with ways in which people must do penance to be considered humble enough not to be bullied at work. It must stop. We can’t afford it and it’s not a good idea even if we could. Private businesses can obviously do what they want with their money but the government has a responsibility to make sure people can get an appointment for a persistent cough before they spend money on this drivel.

Times too with a fair bit about both Maya and stonewall

Suella Braverman scraps diversity lessons

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b6bda466-1360-11ed-b5dc-213f5c972cc4?shareToken=bdde7268297602e1bfe38a7df52a16f5

Before anyone says it's the Tories weaponising the Equality Act, I'm afraid there's some truth to the "industry" charge. Before that Act, the public sector (at least) had to consider separate pieces of legislation. I remember having a Disability Equality Scheme - all done in-house based on things like (gasp!) facts and figures, and populations. There were similar things for the other main pieces of legislation, race and sex.

Guess which one never got paid attention to? The one based on sex equality. Guess how other things were dealt with? By looking at the legislative requirements eg religion.

After the EQA, there was indeed a race for new products that could bring the new expanded list together. You ended up with utterly daft "requirements" (they weren't required in law but in the schemes being sold) being made of services that could never meet those requirements because of who used the services. For example increasing a particular demographic in your stats is impossible if you're in an area where that demographic is simply low - what are you to do? Instigate gerrymandering?

IMO women were losing out before and we've lost out in the race for these schemes and with the addition of the not-needed "inclusion" and with the loss of the needed "fairness".

Not saying I am not going to look with a keen eye at what is proposed here but there's a definite history to it all.