Regulatory capture

[LangCleg]

We've had two (well, one still standing) threads on Accenture and its inclusive LGBT event excluding lesbians by power of the state over the last couple of days.

We've also discussed the way in which the policy-setting leadership of other companies, state institutions (for example the police and the NHS), charities (for example NSPCC) and third sector orgs (for example Girl Guides) have enforced the top-down imposition of Gender Identity ideology despite obvious practical and ethical issues and conflicts of rights.

I came across someone remarking about the concept of regulatory capture on Twitter in relation to all this and, since we've also been discussing the actual power relations behind various oppression narratives, I wonder what everyone thought.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies".

There are two basic types of regulatory capture and the second rings a few bells:

Non-materialist capture, also called cognitive capture or cultural capture, in which the regulator begins to think like the regulated industry. This can result from interest-group lobbying by the industry.

What do we think? Are there parallels?

Their evidence is clearly recorded in the written records of the committee, but no mention of it appears in Miller's final report or in her recommendations.

Analysed by Prof Kathleen Stock:
medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559

This is interesting, definitely worth examining further.

I was looking at contemporary reports about the EA2010 the other day, for an AIBU thread - ‘mission creep’ seems like a good way to explain how a law passed to prevent workplace discrimination is being used to justify removing women’s rights to single sex domestic violence shelters and prisons...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/10496993

about Miranda Yardley being made subject to baseless prosecution

Telegraph:
(extract)
The 51-year-old accountant, who still identifies as male, was prosecuted after Helen Islan, the mother of a transgender child, accused him of "outing" her son by posting a picture of him on Twitter.

Mr Yardley was interviewed at length by Essex Police in April 2018, before a file on the case was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Prosecutors concluded that the offending tweet constituted a transgender hate crime, and he was summonsed to appear before Basildon Magistrates' Court, charged with harassment under section 2 of the Prosecution from Harassment Act 1997.

But the case was thrown out by a District Judge, who declared that the prosecution had failed to provide any evidence that the tweet constituted harassment.

It was later established that the picture Mr Yardley had Tweeted had previously been published online by the complainant herself.

Mr Yardley told the Telegraph that the whole experience had been like a "Kafkaeque nightmare" and he warned that highly organised transgender lobbyists were using the police to shut down anyone who disagreed with them."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/21/first-person-prosecuted-transgender-hate-crime-says-waste-police/

Miranda Yardley articles:
mirandayardley.com/en/regina-v-miranda-yardley-more-darvo-from-helen-islan/

mirandayardley.com/en/when-a-transsexual-is-prosecuted-for-transgender-hate-crime/

Very strong parallels.

To be an exact fit, it would have to be the regulatory agencies that had been captured, so the Charity Commission, IPCC, OFSTED etc.

Yes. Not an exact fit. But I did think we were getting somewhere on the various Accenture threads talking about power dynamics and so perhaps some way of continuing that would help us clarify thinking or develop new ideas.

To be an exact fit, it would have to be the regulatory agencies that had been captured, so the Charity Commission, IPCC, OFSTED etc.

Do IPSO's guidelines fall into that?

www.ipso.co.uk/media/1275/guidance_transgender-reporting.pdf

So that’s what we do then is it? Complaints to everyone misrepresenting the law? Schools? Councils? Our workplaces? And just escalate until we get to the top?

And explain to others what the law is and encourage them to do the same?

Yes, for anyone who has the energy. I think probably lots of us do stage 1 complaints, get a shit response and give up. We need to escalate beyond the internal complaints procedure to make regulators aware of the problem.

Sometimes you can skip the internal complaints altogether, sometimes you can't unless you've done the internal complaints first. e.g. for BBC programmes you have to go through 3 stages of internal complaints but for programmes that are not BBC you can go straight to OFCOM.

Yes IPSO is a good example of regulation capture and we know Trans Media Watch worked hard to capture them.

Really interesting.
What about the Ministry of Justice consulting with trans groups about the placement of prisoners. How the hell did that happen? What other group of prisoners have their own personal cheerleaders advocates overseeing their placement?

EHRC - thoroughly captured.

Yes, press coverage and press guidelines are a prime example.

They resulted in that ridiculous case in Sheffield where a convicted rapist on the run was reported as being a woman who might be disguised as a man - thus totally misleading the public as to the actual appearance of what was a dangerous offender who could pose a serious risk to anyone encountering (redacted due to MN sharing the same approach to pronouns).

In Scotland see James Morton prisons/schools/census etc

That seems like an excellent concept. And if you look at the EHRC, the Children's Commissioner, the Scottish Prison Service etc, these may not be regulatory per se, but they are agencies and organisations involved in policy making. That they have been captured is evident from the way they have supported or implemented policies directly in conflict with their original aims.

Yes, press coverage and press guidelines are a prime example.

See Helen Belcher /Trans Media Watch

But I did think we were getting somewhere on the various Accenture threads talking about power dynamics and so perhaps some way of continuing that would help us clarify thinking or develop new ideas.

Yes definitely!

What other group of prisoners have their own personal cheerleaders advocates overseeing their placement?

Certainly not females, who have been greatly impacted by trans-lobbyists impact.

The EHRC is in that list of regulators.

The problem is, the GC view just doesn't hold water

sigh

provide a non circular definition of woman that includes Theresa May and Jane Fae but excludes Donald Trump

see if that can hold water. it really is that simple

and yes, the most interesting strand on the deleted Accenture thread related to the power dynamics at play

EHRC - thoroughly captured.

To expand on this, the EA itself says we can have single sex exceptions where it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It says nothing about only being allowed to apply these policies on a case-by-case basis.

The effect of this additional requirement is that if a women-only service wishes to use this exception and is legally challenged by a tw, the case becomes personal.

The test is no longer whether it's justified and proportionate for women to have female only space in a specific circumstance. The test is now whether this particular tw is 'woman enough' for female service users to be expected to turn a blind eye to their maleness and accept them personally into what was a female only space.

'Case by case' means that no-one has the right to run women only services any more. You can have it as a policy but 'case by case' overrules your policy so you can never guarantee female only space to your service users.

Case-by-case turns up in the EHRC statutory code which, while not the law itself, carries a lot of legal weight - basically you need a very good reason for not following it if you end up in court.

While formulating the statutory code EHRC consulted a number of organisations including Gires, Press for Change and an organisation called a:gender - a support network for trans civil servants. The Code was amended in response to their concerns (see images).

Until recently challenged, EHRC also had the following in their non-statutory guidance -

Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes and therefore should not be excluded from single sex services.

That has gone thankfully but 'case by case' is still there.

PencilsInSpace

Then we need to lobby them. Because ‘case by case’ is just wrong.

Richard Garside says that’s not what the law says.

mobile.twitter.com/RichardJGarside/status/1107199991498592257

Richard Garside is right, it's not mentioned anywhere in the legislation. EHRC made it up themselves with help from TRA lobbyists.

Then we need to lobby them.

That's the point of the thread though. If regulatory capture has already occurred then lobbying by individual citizens won't work because the regulator has already adopted the values and ideology of the lobby/pressure group that has captured it. It won't be able to hear/understand/process objections. See, for example, the only child protection charity with statutory power in the UK, the NSPCC, being entirely incapable of providing answers to safeguarding questions posed by mothers on a parenting website.

By the point of regulatory capture, only overseeing authorities - the government - can restore matters.

EHRC - thoroughly captured.

Worth looking at the legal advisors.
I think on the Bradley &WEP conference threads there were considerable overlaps

See, for example, the only child protection charity with statutory power in the UK, the NSPCC, being entirely incapable of providing answers to safeguarding questions posed by mothers on a parenting website.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_facebook_live/a3343961-Facebook-Live-about-talking-to-kids-about-staying-safe-from-abuse-with-NSPCC

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3353658-AIBU-to-be-shocked-that-the-NSPCC-cancelled-their-Facebook-Live-session-with-Mumsnetters-because-they-didnt-like-the-questions-That-they-cant-explain-why-they-arent-putting-children-in-danger

LangCleg

So we are back to write to your MP?

What else can individuals actually DO?