Regulatory Capture

[BovaryX]

If a determined pressure group achieves regulatory capture and significant swathes of government policy, higher education, corporate policy submits to its dominance, what are the best ways to resist this? Reading some threads on this board, reaction ranges from disbelief through to frustration and sadly, resignation. It strikes me that resignation is a direct aim of those engaged in aggressive regulatory capture. So what would be the best form of resistance for those of us that think the train has left the platform and is careeening way off the tracks?

Get educated by reading a balanced range of research with an open mind. Get involved and do your own research. It's amazing how that can give you confidence that you're making the right call.

IMHO you keep pointing at it.

Question it. Resist it. Make it inconvenient for those who want it rolled out unquestioned. Withdraw your support, close your wallet, vote with your feet.

Support those who are able to raise mass awareness of how it’s happening, journalists and legal experts who care about facts, evidence and the law. Support companies who are willing to uphold the law and Equality rights properly.

Also use both on line and offline platforms to do so. They can censor, de boost and block some of us, but those pesky stickers and wagging tongues are less easy to silence.

So what would be the best form of resistance for those of us that think the train has left the platform and is careeening way off the tracks?

Stand well back from the train, be ready to support the survivors and do you damnedest to make sure the public know who is responsible by asking loads of question.

Well said Hellraiser.

Keep records. As the wheels fall off this abusive bus (which they will, especially in terms of the harm being done to children) there will be calls for both punishment and recompense. Organisations, politicians and powerful individuals who have allowed dangerous individuals / organisations to erode safeguarding, medical ethics, education, social care and welfare policies will be eventually held to account.
Evidence of every screen shot, letter, speech, policy document and funding stream will help. Children groomed at a young age, detransitioners, women who have been assaulted in mixed sex facilities, those abused and sacked for speaking truths, professionals harassed in the work place will all be able to identify those who ignored safeguarding and equality guidance and enabled awful things to happen.

realitycalling
Excellent advice to purposely keep records.

There will always be a rash of deletions and denials in the face of the truth.

I will remember their names.

Reality, I think your advice is pertinent but unfortunately I do not share your optimism on those responsible being held to account. Perhaps you are right and I am unduly pessimistic but the events of this century do not give me much confidence.

Regulatory capture is jusy a clever sounding way of saying we presented a range of evidence collected by qualified experts to our democratically elected lawmakers and they made a decision on the basis of the information they had

Keeping up with the FOI requests. Those chains of incompetence, deletion and denial are brilliant sunlight.

Nope. It means that the apparatus of power, political, legislative, academic and corporate is in thrall to a specific, well organized lobby group. I suggest you educate yourself on it.

FrackOff can you define “qualified experts”? Many of the professional lobbyists involved in giving advice to our esteemed leaders are nothing of the sort. Susie Green, CEO of Mermaids, is an IT consultant. She has no qualifications relating to children, transgender or otherwise, beyond the fact that she took her child abroad for an irreversible medical procedure which was made illegal for minors in that country as a direct result of the Green’s visit.

Regulatory capture is jusy a clever sounding way of saying we presented a range of evidence collected by qualified experts to our democratically elected lawmakers and they made a decision on the basis of the information they had

You mean it’s a good description of how the TRAs were able to manipulate statistics and tell lies to woke, ignorant lawmakers that were too lazy and sexist to follow the law properly.

Regulatory capture is jusy a clever sounding way of saying we presented a range of evidence collected by qualified experts to our democratically elected lawmakers and they made a decision on the basis of the information they had

This process was pushed through with as little public consultation as possible, and was kept under the radar for the maximum possible time as we were deliberately withholding the information that these changes would affect the rights of other groups. We also quietly manoeuvred a number of our activists into key positions so that those groups who were consulted about the rights of those other groups would give answers that were perfectly in line with our hyper-carefully selected “experts”.

Fixed it for you.

GC rhetoric I would say has achieved such an extreme level of journalistic capture nobody trusts the Times to be measured any more. So glass houses, stones etc.

FrackOff, if all that you say is true, then you and the TRAs have absolutely nothing to worry about from GC people, do you? After all the truth will prevent any of those changes from being rolled back, won’t they? So why the need to defend Regulatory capture?

What process? It's a lot more complex than you're making it sound.

I was just debunking the simplistic idea of regulatory capture with irony. Truth is all opinions can be forced into lawmakers' minds in the same way, and it's disingenuous to make out that trans people have more of their ear than anyone else (see the Times, the BBC).

Re Susie Green - she draws on the advice she's given by international experts at WPATH. She feeds in the POV of a parent. Health and other policy needs many voices, including expert and other stakeholder.

Also I am astonished by the hubris on here. At what point do you get a niggling doubt that maybe it's a mistake to plug your ears and go lalalalala to Amnesty International, Flora, the NSPCC, Helen Mirren, M&S, and the United Nations!?!

Also I am astonished by the hubris on here. At what point do you get a niggling doubt that maybe it's a mistake to plug your ears and go lalalalala to Amnesty International, Flora, the NSPCC, Helen Mirren, M&S, and the United Nations!?!

Because we’re women that put the needs, safety and dignity of women and children first. We acknowledge the very real risk to females when companies and organisations that are mainly run by males, who have no appreciation of the lived experiences of females, put the desires of those born male before women and children.

all opinions can be forced into lawmakers' minds in the same way

Well, that's a somewhat strange description of policy making.

What should happen is that scientific evidence, good quality research and studies, as well as opinions from a range of different viewpoints is collated; consultations should involve everyone directly involved with or with experience of a situation, policy should be openly and respectfully discussed and debated when necessary.

Policy making is not just a matter of forcing 'opinions', or who lobbies loudest and hardest, though it seems that some see that as a way to approach it.

Be real.

Re the hubris:
Amnesty, UN, and NSPCC have an army of researchers
Flora and MnS have an army of market researchers

None of them would want to be in the wrong side of anyone's safety or legal protection, including all kinds of women and children- yes, even trans women and children

it's a mistake to plug your ears and go lalalalala to Amnesty International, Flora, the NSPCC, Helen Mirren, M&S, and the United Nations!?!

That's a funny list. Flora marg, my go to brand for legal advice.

Frack, why are you denying the existence and disputing the meaning of regulatory capture? It means the deliberate, orchestrated manipulation of the apparatus of power on behalf of lobby group. You seem very uncomfortable by any reference to it. How bizarre. But hey. Good to see appeal to authority fallacy at work! Kudos for Helen Mirren and Flora!😂

And doesn't the support of anti choice HandsAcross the Aisle, Jordan Peterson, Piers Morgan et al give you pause?

Arguments from authority are rarely a good idea. Amnesty International are centring male sexual rights like porn and prostitution. NSPCC has completely lost its way and many of their staff have no idea about the importance of safeguarding children. Do you know anything about what these organisations are saying and doing? It's very concerning.

At what point do you get a niggling doubt that maybe it's a mistake to plug your ears and go lalalalala to Amnesty International, Flora, the NSPCC, Helen Mirren, M&S, and the United Nations!?!

Don't forget GCHQ and the CIA!

At what point do you start to wonder whether the support of every establishment entity and institution means that your "liberation" movement would be more accurately described as an elite supremacist movement.

I know this is a tricky one to process, but the entire point of liberation movements is that they are unable to appeal to authorities. That's why they need liberating.

Many of us live constantly with that niggling doubt. It causes us to check and recheck facts and information. It leads us to send FOIs, read medical studies over and over, and examine laws, both domestic and international.

And each time we feel that doubt, we recheck. And realise again just how much deliberate misinformation is being spread. So we carry on, despite the fact that there are a million other things we’d prefer to be doing.

Because eventually reality will reassert itself. Because women’s rights and women matter.