Full page advert in Metro

[Bespin]

Check out @stonewalluk’s Tweet: twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1052446619491336192?s=09

I would imagine any normal readers of the Metro will file this under bonkers and not read it TBH.

GCHQ?? Isn’t it illegal for a government dept to

RTB is right. The context here is chilling.

Either GCHQ support and fully understand what they’ve put their name to in which case women are screwed. Or GCHQ haven’t done their due diligence and are going to be absolutely furious that they’ve been used like this, in which case stonewall are screwed.
Either way, their social media person/s are going to be screwed.

This really is remarkable. It’s like watching NATO

Makes us as a country look completely stupid

I think we have long since crossed that bridge as a nation.

I always wanted the tap on the shoulder at uni. Sigh.

I am still boggled by the inclusion of gchq on that ad. The implications are shocking any way you look at it.

Babel

I had a friend who was invited for interview at the Foreign Office (?I think or whatever Government Department it was) then half way through she was asked to sign the Official Secrets Act and they asked her whether she'd be interested in joining MI6. She did Russian at university though. They were never bothered about my sociology degree!

I'm in danger of getting RSI here, due to the amount of emails I have sent lately, but I have tweeted as many of those organisations as I could this morning.

I am beyond cross.

This is my email to the CEO of Virgin Money.

"Ethical banking is important to me, so you will understand how disappointed I was to see you attach your name to a Stonewall advertisement linking to Stonewall guidance on how to complete a Government consultation. Stonewall, as you surely know, is a lobbying organisation, representing a specific group. I am sure Virgin Money is also aware of the controversy around the proposed amendments to the gender reform act, which effectively will allow any man to identify to as a women and any women to identify as a man, including women's concerns about consequential loss of protection for vulnerable women. There are currently 4902 transexuals with GRCs. The government estimates that between 200,000 and 500,000 people, for a variety of reasons, will choose to identify as the opposite sex.

My mother is very vulnerable. She deserves dignity and respect. I should be able to request a woman carries out any intimate care, and that she be housed in a suitable woman's space, either in a hospital or a care home. The fact that her bank does not think these protections are important, and are lobbying to have them removed is shocking. If she were able, my mother would also be concerned about the impact on her beloved Girl Guides and other single sex organisations.

I would like that:

1. you explain why Virgin Money have become involved in trying to sway a Government consultation, especially when even Stonewall accepts that 82% of the population oppose the reforms
2. that you calculate how much Virgin Money has given to Stonewall or spent on Stonewall services, and donate to either a reputable womens lobbying group like Fair Play for Women, or to a women's refuge or charity.

I look forward to hearing from you,"

My mother, via me as POA, was one of their very first customers after the rebranding. I would have thought that rich old people were one of their target markets. Instead they are happily throwing them under the bus.

I once had an interview with GCHQ. It was lots of maths type puzzles, and was quite fun. We were escorted everywhere and followed when, as a group, we were on the train. I assuming listening to our casual conversation was part of the interview. It was a long time ago. I did not get the job. I also knew someone who worked there, who was very ordinary but an extraordinary linguist. She spoke about 12 languages, and was able to reach fluency in even a non European language in months.

"I always wanted the tap on the shoulder at uni. Sigh."

My very much older brother was invited out to dinner at university by someone from another college. There were two other, non student men there too. He didn't ever hear from them again. It was many years later that he suddenly realised what was going on, and that he had failed!

How exciting :) I suppose it’s Porton Down if you’re a scientist and I’m far too tired for airlock level security these days

What actually are trans rights? Surely transpeople have the same rights as all of us?

I've seen quite a few media discussions in the last few days about what those specific trans rights might be, and I can't for the life of me remember which one it was, but I swear I saw someone saying, in all seriousness, that they had the 'right to be validated'.

No one has the right to be validated

It's not a thing. It's like the right to be cuddled. Yes, bring cuddled is often necessary for a human to be happy, but it's not a right.

Honestly, the pure ridiculousness of people wailing "Affirm me! Affirm me!" is just too silly for more words.

Needsmoresleep I emailed VM yesterday, I sent it to the Comms dept (perhaps I should have aimed higher). No response as yet.

@Needmoresleep

Had a response back from Virgin Money. They seem to be taking a similar approach to The Guardian opinion piece from yesterday. I've had worse replies on this subject but they didn't address my questions specifically. I'm wondering if it's a stock response?

Thank you for your letter regarding our support for Stonewall.

At Virgin Money we believe that individuals should be able to fulfil their potential and play a full role in our society, regardless of their gender, race, social background, sexual orientation or age.

Stonewall was established almost 30 years ago to help advance equality and acceptance for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people and Virgin Money believes in the positivity and the openness that the rainbow flag symbolises.

We do acknowledge that there are a range of valid viewpoints around gender politics, and it is important that all voices are heard.

We also acknowledge that a conflict exists between transgenderism and sex-based women’s rights, and it is right for these issues to be debated respectfully.

Ultimately, we are not partisan on specific recommendations that Stonewall have made - we are passionate about fairness, equality and inclusion for everyone.

As such, the government’s consultation on how best to reform the Gender Recognition Act allows everyone to express their views and concerns on this important issue.

Yours sincerely,

Ova does that sound like they were endorsing Stonewall's position on Self ID?

No it does not.

They support trans rights. Yes fine. Thats not a bad thing.

But they have just categorically told you that the issue over Self ID is not something they are lobbying either for or against.

This once again matches what I strongly believe about the ad. Those companies are not all aware of the context of that advert and the subtext. They have taken Stonewall at face value.

Stonewall are over stretching.

Why?

I know there is some boycotting going on. I personally think the boycotting of the businesses on this list, is pointless UNLESS YOU TELL THEM.

This exposes Stonewalls over stretching.

Then people start to ask questions about what Stonewall is doing and just how its throwing its weight about and whether its abusing its position of trust and the good will it has in the bank.

Stonewall is currently not being scruntised by ANYONE. All power and institutions need checks and balances. Without exception or they are vulnerable to corruption.

It needs to get to a point, where it starts to be ok for companies are able to ask questions of Stonewall without it damaging their liberal identity and corporate branding.

Arm them with the tools to do this.

Stonewall NEEDS to be challenged about what it is doing. Its become obvious it is not possible to do from within. There are groups of individuals who SHOULD be represented by Stonewall who are clearly not, but Stonewall says it is speaking in their name. This is WRONG.

No one is above scrutiny. No one is above criticism. Stonewall don't get an exception.

I got the same. Plan to go back and point out the T is only recent. That I have every respect for the old Stonewall and its gay rights campaign. But that this is different. The rights demanded, can only be achieved at the expense of other peoples rights. Including those of lesbians. I will mention the current petition to Stonewall mainly organised by concerned LGBs.

And then ask why, given what they say, they were promoting a link to a lobbying group rather than to the consultation itself.

I will then ask again why they did not provide parallel signposting to the FPFW guidance. And suggest they provide them with similar levels of financial support.

And ask if my mother can transfer her money without penalty.

This once again matches what I strongly believe about the ad. Those companies are not all aware of the context of that advert and the subtext. They have taken Stonewall at face value.

I did point out in my email why it was not a neutral ad and that the link went straight to the prefilled guidance. They haven't answered my specific question as to whether they were aware of this.

I got the same.

So it was a stock response then. I felt it probably was.

Follow up! My guess is that like Red said, many of these companies have no idea what Stonewall's current position on these issues is or that they're being linked with that position by association.

But Red Tooth Brush, dont big firms have communications departments who are there to protect their reputations. And they do this in part by carrying out due dilligence.

It would not take much reasearch to wonder whether an organisation that has no problem using Aimee Challenor as an advisor, is not going to enhance a bank's reputation.

I can't believe that so many mainstrean organisations were fooled. It sounds more like they were determined to be woke, like Ocado forgetting who their target market are. Or that key decision makers within the organisation have personal agendas.

I don't think anyone is doing any research, because Stonewall are coasting on a reputation that was once excellent and well deserved. Not so much any more, but if you hadn't been paying attention you might not have noticed that.

Getting on the Stonewall employers list and getting the stonewall star is a big plus for companies who want to be seen as caring about diversity (bit like the old "investors in people" badge).
This is a throwback to the fairly recent times when stonewall was all about gay representation.
Unfortunately now to get the star you also have to demonstrate TRA ideology and there are not yet enough employees willing to speak out against that. I think the tide is turning though. But definitely email companies about this advert. I would include the FPFW ad too so they can see what stonewall are objecting to.

But Red Tooth Brush, dont big firms have communications departments who are there to protect their reputations. And they do this in part by carrying out due dilligence.

That advert was not subjected to due dilligence.

It just wasn't.

It did not get explicitly approved with full disclosure of the other Metro Ad and that it was about linking to Stonewall's policy. Stonewall were not fully transparent about what they were doing.

James Kirkup has pointed out one issue with the ad. There are others.

The Virgin responses also confirms it. They are not willing to stand by Stonewall's Self ID position unequivalently.

You might think it was subject to due dilligence. But thats the point about the collaspe of safeguarding. People are acting, at best, in good faith without critical thought. Its not just on an individual level. Its also going on at an institutional level.

And like individuals want a liberal identity as it has a certain social status, so do businesses want to project and replacate that as part of their branding and in the way they sell themselves to a certain group.

And like individuals businesses are not applying critical thought to this. They are just going along with the fashion and what they believe to be the social consensus that appeals to a certain key market.

Thought:

What’s the process when stonewall do this? Presumably some companies have worked with stonewall before and endorsed other perfectly legit ads without issue. Are companies contacted about the specific content of each ad before their logo is put in them? Or is it a kind of ‘well we’ve endorsed you as an employer, and we will use your logo for advertising’ and companies have signed up for that? In the small print so to speak.

Because I cannot imagine that GCHQ, which is not exactly filled with dullards, supported an ad that falls foul of the law on government depts and lobbying. I would be interested to see the communications around the ad itself. And note that if you’re going to piss off a bit of the powers that be, GCHQ would be a Very Bad Idea.

I shall watch the fallout with interest.