Naomi Cunningham's Excellent Analogy for GRA/EqA interaction

[arranfan]

Saying changing the GRA doesn't change the EqA is like saying "It's ok everyone, we're keeping the door locked just as it always was" while making massive changes to your criteria for handing out keys.

twitter.com/NB_Cunningham/status/1048897230458036224

DH and I were talking last night and that was the example we came up with - except that Naomi Cunningham is a lawyer and expresses it better. We were faffing round with imagery of doors with newly-installed digital locks (just to update them because analogue locks are so out-of-date) and unintentionally leaving in a default factory-setting code that grants access to everyone...

Excellent analogy.

I'd take it further and say it's not just the criteria for handing out keys that has changed, but the fact that the key is actually left hanging on a nail right beside the door, for any passer by to use.

Or - you haven't change the lock mechanism, but now anyone who wants a key only has to ask.

That's good. Locking the door and giving everyone a key.

like it

I'm half way through my response - might borrow this!

@LadyJustice - sorry to @ you but something is niggling away at me.

In publishing, papers can be retracted. In medicine and clinical research, there's an excellent site called, Retraction Watch :

retractionwatch.com

Is there any similar mechanism here? When Stonewall's advice is in error and so many authorities have constructed their policies base on that advice, is there any mechanism for tracking and enforcing a retraction of that error when/if it happens?

Bookmarking, very good info here. I will use it.

From the comments in that thread:

Also worth noting that we all lock our houses even though most people wouldn’t dream of coming in uninvited. We lock doors to protect against the few who won’t respect our boundaries. It’s called security.

And if we don't lock our houses, our insurers refuse to pay out on the basis that we didn't do enough to protect ourselves.