Full page advert in Metro

[Bespin]

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

I thought the TRAs were boycotting the Metro?

I'm a bit embarrassed for them.

Hopefully FPFW or Posie will respond with another full page ad. The Metro could do quite well out of this, not sure how I feel about that but Im inclined to support fighting fire with fire at this crucial point in time.

I know, it's hilarious! It's like they thought everyone would be up in arms about the FPFW and when they realised they weren't, copied it!

SanFranBear are you sure they signed up to that advert?

Lots to suggest the companies are not aware of the context and Stonewall has acted in bad faith.

If possible, ask questions. Though I appreciate not easy as it's your employer.

Datun SCRs are undertaken by local safeguarding children boards (LSCBs). They are triggered when a child dies or is seriously harmed by abuse or neglect and there is cause for concern about how agencies have worked together. For example, a child dying of serious injuries incurred over a period of time whilst attending a school. How did the school not notice/ how did this stay secret? If they did notice, what agencies did they involve - if none, why not, if so, what action did the agencies take etc. The focus is on policy and practice and what can be changed/needs to change.
I guess there would be a similar process for the prison service, but probably not called a SCR as this refers to what LSCBs do. I don't know anything about this.
I have been wondering for some time what sort of inquest might happen if death or serious harm happened in a public space that was linked to self id. What mechanisms exist for reviewing the law? Would one incident was sufficient to trigger an inquest? Who would/could call for an inquest? I think these are all interesting questions when thinking about what the government may feel able to ignore/ not ignore in relation to the consultation findings.

As a long time customer of Virgin Money I've fired off an email to find out if they actually understand what they are supporting here and whether removing sex based protections for women and girls is something that aligns with their company values?

Red - I believe they understand the wider implications due to the internal comms which have been sent in the last 12 months..

The are one of the very large private companies on that list and unfortunately my position is such that I feel unable to put my head above the parapet, I'm ashamed to say. I have raised it with some colleagues and several have confided they are uncomfortable although there are some who have dismissed the impact on women with the whole 'it'll never happen'. One of whom is also a Guide leader which saddens me hugely.

I hope it genuinely is too late as several posters here have stated.

I know GCHQ are very inclusive (A transfriend works there) but I would be surprised if they paid money for that advert in the full knowledge of how it would be used. The IPO response seems to say as much, they are inclusive, but not saying anything about any consultation.

I suspect someone has overstepped their mark there! Maybe there will be a backlash if we can tell them all how their support has been used, the link etc.

I am emailing said friend, who I know is against Self ID!

Not sure how to read these, are they naive about what they have put support behind or is there more to this?

CONTEXT

THE CONTEXT IS IT READS LIKE A REBUTTAL TO THE OTHER AD.

In which case its a highly politically sensitive ad which is using the company names here to influence the consultantion and appears like it is trying to intimidate.

That's the key point that needs to be stressed.

They have been used.

Stonewall used them for its own agenda on self ID.

I think they likely were okay with being seen to show public support for 'trans equality'.

I don't think they all knew that Stonewall was using them to influence legislation that is widely controversial, lacks public support, and is considered by thousands and thousands of women as anti-woman.

I don't have an issue with transpeople having the same rights as anyone else.

We know this controversy is about the clash of what claims to be Trans rights squashing women's rights.

And we also get told by all the poor, beleaguered transactivist AWAs that the GC people have all the power.

So here is a big old list of powerful companies and organisations saying they support 'trans rights'. Which pretty much shows that, yet again, the AWAs are lying through their pearly whites and they have quite a lot of access to and influence on the powerful.

Someone need to point out what they've done, they've actually been misled here

but how are they being misled? Stonewall's position is clear for all to see. Surely these organisations don't put their name to something without thoroughly doing their homework?

Surely these organisations don't put their name to something without thoroughly doing their homework?

I bet most did.

The public bodies could be subject to FOI requests on this around money spent and resource used, plus lobbying/meetings with Stonewall etc.

It does look like it's an attempt to influence consultation, the question is were they aware or have they been duped.

RiverTam you are making the assumption they are aware of the context and aware of how this advert would read to certain key groups in that context.

I don't believe it will have been put in that way, and these companies are acting in good faith to simply support trans rights.

But the context is actually a set position on self ID and the GRA consultation, not simply being supportive of trans rights.

That's the problem.

Unless you are in the know about the context itd be easy to not realise what was going on.

And no I don't believe they all 'did their homework'.

But that's my point. These places will have brand managers, they will (or should) be hyper-aware of what they attaching that brand to. Some will be highly litigious about their name or logo being used in ways they don't approve of.

I would expect every brand manager who cries 'but that's not what Stonewall told me, I didn't know about this' to be sacked.

Or - they did know and are perfectly happy with this.

Either way, they come out of it smelling of shit.

Nail.

Head.

Depends what you sign up for as a Stonewall partner/diversity champion.

It's possible something is signed upfront to say they approve Stonewall using their logo on materials. If so then SW have no need to contact every single time they wish to use a logo.

It would be a bit shortsighted but Stonewall is an org people automatically trust. I know I did until I discovered they were lobbying on the quiet to remove my sex based protections.

It's a bit of a third sector problem overall. Look how many were duped by Kids Company.

Wow, way to go Stonewall, bringing down capitalism. How very bourgeois.

There isn't enough public support fro self id for brand managers to make decisions to support it.I doubt any of them thought they were signing up to promoting self id. Now they are in the shit. How do they distance themselves from the consultation and some of Stonewalls fuckwitery but at the same time not look like they are distancing themselves from supporting trans people.
Good luck with solving that one!

Of course Stonewall are gambling on the fact that no one us going to sue for using a company logo to promote trans rights...

So... P and G, remind me what products do they make?