LGB Conservatives think the Tory party is captured too.

[Fallingirl]

About to go to sleep, and I came upon this.

According to LGB Conservatives (don’t actually know who they are. An actual group within the party?), the Tory party is strongly allied with Stonewall and “may not hold out much longer”.

If this is true, we really are up against it. The only action that springs to mind, is contacting as many Tory MP’s as we can, to let them know cancelling women’s rights will be noticed, and we really do care.

Likewise with safeguarding of children in schools.

I don’t know what this group knows, or where their information comes from, though.

In another thread, In AIBU, someone was suggesting Dominic Cummings is busily undermining the civil service, and hoarding power for himself. We know the civil service is captured, anyone know anything about Cummings?

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1227991141318086656.html

TheRealMcKenna

Yes apologies it was a general point which Id intended to make earlier in the discussion.

The Conservatives have responsibility for what are effectively 'self id' public policies & serious Safeguarding & due process failures.

The Conservatives have responsibility for what are effectively 'self id' public policies & serious Safeguarding & due process failures.

Totally agree.

Exactly as @R0wantrees said. What is interesting I think is the complete lack of loyalty this government has with the last May or even Cameron government, so I can imagine them distancing themselves from the failings of the last 10 years as they position themselves as a different breed. How long this lasts or how deep it goes is another matter.

While there are elements of genderism that fits with conservatism (individualism etc), overall it is seen as a progressive cultural obsession that repels "ordinary" voters.

I seem to be getting some sense on here that so long as the Tories stick with no self ID all their other policies are somehow less important.

They are planning a pretty massive assault on protecting your rights against the government with a review of judicial review plus the most economically damaging Brexit with all that entails in terms of cuts to public services which will have the most impact on women.

Plus a fair amount from Suella Braverman and similar on "people caring more for their own families" which will translate as "cuts in social services that mean you'll get no help in looking after your elderly relatives."

Are we really going to spend the next five years looking at women's rights entirely through the prism of one issue and ignoring everything else the Tories will do to fuck up women's lives?

HPFA If the meaning of the very word woman can't be defined none of the other issues matter.
Sex based rights are at the heart of slot of what you listed, from elderly care needing the right to same sex careers, to your very post about how the Tories will impact women.

Are we really going to spend the next five years looking at women's rights entirely through the prism of one issue and ignoring everything else the Tories will do to fuck up women's lives?

Well of course not, but equally I've never seen all the other parties line up to back a policy that would remove my rights. So if a government I didn't vote for actually protects my rights then yes, I will be very happy about that.

Those sort of policies are what every Conservative Government does or says. And unlike trans issue (where there are real concerns about legality of guidance and statute being changed to alter fundamental rights) you would expect cuts and to deliver Brexit.

This is not a socially progressive government. Bad then that the Labour Party have given up real social policy for women - but they are certainly worse for women on a fundamental level than the Conservatives to judge from last week’s expel me debacle.

Re the employment of the intern: Civil Service recruiters don’t get the names of applicants (a measure to try to ensure open and fair recruitment) and the recruitment training explicitly advises against - or it certainly used to - googling interviewees on the grounds that HR cannot be expected to justify a decision not to recruit someone that was based on something outwith the recruitment process (the recruitment process obviously including DBS checks & references). Also some CS positions receive hundreds and hundreds of applications - I once had over 1500 to sift through for one vacancy - so if you think anyone in an underfunded, staff-slashed-to-the-bone CS HR department has time to google that lot, you don’t understand the constraints of the modern CS.

The Service has been captured, no doubt about that, but to think the intern’s application should have been weeded out by a quick google is laughable naive.

I admit I was shocked that people were treating the pledges signed by Keir Starmer and the ones from the other anti-trans group as one and the same.

One set of pledges left the space for compromise fully open, the other said things like "there is no conflict between the rights of transwomen and women" and demanded widespread expulsions of Labour members who had the temerity to disagree.

It just feels that this whole issue is becoming so polarised and soon there'll be no space for anyone who isn't firmly on one side or the other. Are transwomen women? Well, no, if that means someone can wake up one morning and declare themselves a woman and that's it; on the other hand I do regard the likes of Jan Morris as being a woman. And the space to say stuff like that seems to be disappearing fast.

I wouldn't expect anyone to google all applicants, but I would expect them to run a basic check once they were considering offering someone the job.

Quite frankly, if the CS process didn't pick up on her actions, then the recruitment process isn't fit for purpose. The data breach was in Feb/March 2018 and she joined the CS in Jan 2019.

We're talking about doxxing women she disagreed with, not getting smashed off her face partying in Ibiza. A lot of women were very upset by her actions. I wouldn't trust her with sensitive information in a month of Sundays.

Surely she would have needed references to get the CS job?

And I would hope that MN would not give a clean reference to anyone known to have doxxed MN users. That's a clear data protection issue. And exactly the kind of thing that should make her ineligible for a job in the CS - which itself has very clear, strict guidelines on these sorts of things.

The cynic in me is thinking that perhaps displaying overtly woke /anti-GC credentials might be seen as a positive attribute in an organisation that has been 'captured'. Especially if the recruiters share similar views.

The 21C equivalent of the masonic handshake.

Andrew Gilligan "is a British policy adviser and journalist, currently transport adviser to the Prime Minister. Until July 2019 he was senior correspondent of The Sunday Times"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gilligan

Emma Healey is "Assistant Private Secretary at Department for Transport (DfT)"

uk.linkedin.com/in/emma-healey-954250167

I wonder if they've met?

Probably not. Assistant private secretary is a good start to a fast stream Civil Seevice career, but Private Secretaries and Under Secretaries, even Permanent Secretaries will guard their No 10 contacts carefully.

DoT is not a standard launching pad for really high flying Civil service careers.

If I was Andrew, (or Dominic Cummings), my spidey-senses would be tingling.

DoT is not a standard launching pad for really high flying Civil service careers.

Time will tell. Regulatory capture wouldn't work unless it was subtly introduced.

Candidly I’m surprised Emma got through CS vetting with her history of leaking. I imagine she’s in a v junior ministerial office role but you don’t get to do that without signing the official secrets act. Even the diary secretary will have access to highly confidential information just by virtue of being in the minister’s office. Surprising.

Here's what her role involves.

www.vercida.com/uk/articles/department-transport-assistant-private-secretary

I'm surprised, given Dominic Cumming's professed hatred of civil servants who leak, that she is still in a job.

But more surprised she passed security vetting to get into the civil service, given her history. She sounds completely unsuitable and with no understanding of civil service values or appropriate behaviour. Impartiality is key - doxxing contacts because you disagree with their politics is the very opposite of what is permitted in the Civil Service Code!

For posters who don't know what we're talking about, these are the relevant threads relating to the data breach by a Mumsnet intern in 2018

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3225517-The-MNHQ-Moderation-team#77214568

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3226060-The-MNHQ-Moderation-Team-Thread-2

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3388461-The-aftermath-of-the-intern-data-leak

Dearest Emma, gone, but not forgotten.

Are we really going to spend the next five years looking at women's rights entirely through the prism of one issue and ignoring everything else the Tories will do to fuck up women's lives

You see, many, including myself, see this as an absolutely first order issue.......not secondary; or one less important than any of the others.....it is fundamental to our understanding of ourselves as human beings, and as women. Also the issue has major implications for our children and grandchildren.

That Vercida website - not heard of them. They promote diversity - Over 50s, LGBTQ+, disabilities (sic), parents and returners. Funny what group they don’t mention by name.

It just feels that this whole issue is becoming so polarised and soon there'll be no space for anyone who isn't firmly on one side or the other. Are transwomen women? Well, no, if that means someone can wake up one morning and declare themselves a woman and that's it; on the other hand I do regard the likes of Jan Morris as being a woman

It has become polarised because radical transgender ideology is seeking to re-frame what constitutes a woman; and replace the fact of sex category with gender identity...and furthermore to move in and colonise women's spaces/services and sports; & redefine the language that it is 'legitimate' to use, and in doing so negating women's right to organise on behalf of their own interests.

Also the issue of children, and what our children are being taught......this is pretty basic, fundamental stuff.I'm not sure how anyone can be mild mannered or on the fence about this, myself?

If you accept trans ideology then you have to accept the whole lot of it - as a logical necessity.

I also don't see Jan Morris as a woman - but as a trans woman - which is something quite different ( & yes I have read Morris's book about 'transitioning', and as well as their travel writing.

Jan Morris has latterly acknowledged that they are not a woman. They think they are somewhere in the middle.

For posters who don't know what we're talking about, these are the relevant threads relating to the data breach by a Mumsnet intern in 2018

See also the thread discussing NUS Women's Conference workshop by Rowan Davis & Eden Ladley 'How To Deal With Terfs' which prompted Emma's determination to stop MN members discussing this & protect her friend/s(?). Emma claimed she had friends still working at MN who might be able to sort out the 'transphobic scum'
This was just prior to her publishing of the blog 'exposing' the 'transphobia' on Mumsnet FWR.

Eden Ladley is currently NUS Trans Officer & a founder signatory of the Labour Trans Radical Pledge.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3222263-Slide-show-on-How-to-Deal-with-TERFs?pg=1#prettyPhoto[gallery77202844]/1/

It would be normal to seek references - wonder what MN said about her. The more I think about it the more it is odd that someone responsible for such a major breach of trust and confidentiality has got a job in the CS and one in a ministerial office at that.