Starmer appoint Harman as his advisor on women and girls

JKR is on it:

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2053074179595919617?s=20

I wouldn't worry too much. It's a non job, just like Gordon Brown's new role.

Starmer is just trying to shore up his own position in the party.

I have reached the point of complete despair with Labour. They are delivering the country to Reform with a gift bow.

Our faces? Not yours @TheseWordsAreMine ?

Starmer is being consistent in this appointment with his election manifesto.

The Labour party came in with the intention to introduce Gender Self Id. His party is still in thrall to gender ideology - even of there may be a few MPs, here and there, who understand the issue. Most of his MPs don't understand the issue. He's chosen Harriet Harman becaue she's considered an elder staeswoman of the house with a self defined history of vocally supporting women's rights. It's that simple.

I'm not saying she is exactly the same. But like Epstein, she disregards both women and girls and had connections to people wanting to change the age of consent.

I'm expecting some changes to the law from her. If it's not illegal, the problem goes away. I feel sorry for the people who want justice, because this proves they will never get it. When I saw that news I wanted to vomit.

If a space is designated 'single sex' then that means men have already been excluded. There is no more to it than that. Harman sems to be suggesting that males can be admitted on a 'case by case' basis. This is a totally incorrect reading of the law.

I recall that Harriet Harman was behind that bright pink bus that was thought to be a super duper idea to convince women to vote for them. It was, quite rightly, condemmed as the patronising, belittling, sexist codswallop it was. Great pick as an advisor for women and girls Starmer, really great.

Now you see, that's the kind of thing that I have to challenge

Epstein was a paedophile who abused young women and girls.
Like, actually raped them.

HH failed to act to exclude a pro-paedophile organisation from becoming an affiliate of the NCCL.

She is to be condemned utterly for her failure, but being compared to a paedophile trafficker and rapist??

Wasn’t she also leading an initiative to remove benefits from single mothers in her early career, as well as an expenses and donation scandals? What in her career suggests she’d be good as an adviser for women and girls? She can’t even define those words.

Epstein wasn't available, she must be second choice.

@MarieDeGournay- yes. The PIE debacle shows an appalling lack of judgement. And as the saying goes, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good (wo)men do nothing.”.

If this isn't the catalyst to oust Starmer then nothing will be

He knows exactly what he's doing.

And he is rubbing it in your faces.

I genuinely thought this was a joke when I saw it being mentioned on X.

I can only conclude that Starmer knows it's over for him, so has decided to engage in trolling the electorate.

You're right, I think she 'regretted' it.
I'm not defending HH at all, the bare facts about her are bad enough, I just don't think she was ever a 'PIE supporter'.

Just when you think things can only get better....

There's plenty of off-the-record briefing from government ministers and Labour MPs responding with at least annoyance and at worst contempt to this latest move by Starmer.

Oh dear! 🤦‍♀️

Where has she apologiesd for the PIE connection, out of interest?

The part about intentions is interesting, because remember that woman who was loudly banging on that not being the intention at all, and she was IN THE ROOM as part of the team drafting the law and the SC was the total opposite of what they really meant even though they didn't bother to actually make it clear etc etc?

(I notice she's gone very quiet now actually)

Here I go again, saying 'In fairness to...' when I know it's unpopular, and may be misinterpreted as me supporting the people in question, which I don't:

'In fairness' to HH, she was never a PIE [Paedophile Information Exchange] supporter.
She was an official of the NCCL in the 1970s, and during that time the PIE became some kind of 'affiliate member'.

It's beyond question that they should never have been tolerated in any way by the NCCL at all, and Harman should have acted to get rid of them, when they somehow managed to get rubber-stamped as affiliates.

But I do not believe she was ever a 'PIE supporter'.

I think the facts are damning enough: She will always have to carry the guilt of not having prevented PIE from become an affiliate, or getting rid of them ASAP when she realised they were.

It was the 1970s, and she has apologised deeply, but I think it still casts doubt on her suitability in the specific area of women and children's rights, and along with being TWAW, makes her unsuitable for being an advisor on women and girls.

This very tedious list of coincidental news release is transparent.

Last week the police arrested someone regarding the missing McSweeney phone - didn't find the phone though. FFS how many "normal" people's phones get stolen get this level of attention?

Now suddenly he is hiring a woman to focus on women and equalities but it is FAR too little, FAR too late, not even counting that the choice is poor anyway.

And trying to bring back Brown as some kind of financial figleaf fixer.

It is embarrassing watching him drag this out, we all know there's a speech about "attention detracting from the good work the party is doing, I have made the choice to step aside..." ready to go (if choice means death grip on a job that people are actively bulldozering you out of the door to prevent the next u-turn or fuck up).

Extraordinary! This is why so many people are turning to reform