Mermaids Job advert

[Xanthangum]

twitter.com/Mermaids_Gender/status/1283067063527931905?s=20

Comms trainee assistant, presumably working with rubberpantsboy Jake Edwards.

Quite taken aback that they want applicants to add all their social media accounts to their application. In bold.

I mean, what on earth are they worried about?

A few hard drives being deleted in advance...

ooh! That could be interesting!

They've learned a few things the hard way, haven't they?

Wish, methinks there's a lot of cancellation culture going on right there in the ad.

Wow, not wish. Hideous new phone.

What if you have no social media? Are they checking you are not a vile racist or are they checking that you repeat the relevant mantras?

They cannot fatham that not everybody has social media.

I mean, how would you cancel somebody? Where would the Sonic the Lobster Transphobe memes go? And how could you post your Paypal details for those 'top surgery' donations?

Probably checking applicants are not obsessive Mumsnet monitors.

I wish I had the balls (no pun intended) to apply. I'm pretty sure I could outline my plans in 500 words.

Does Helen still work there? Will she be mentoring this young trailblazer?

Good point about Mumsnet users. Are they including contributions to any forum where users are effectively anonymous?

So basically if you dont supply all links to any social media accounts you could get the job and then lose it.

Thank goodness I grew up in an age when we wrote in our diaries. Can you imagine sending in your diaries as part of your job application!

Unfortunately in relation to this job I am sure there are far too many rainbow warriors who will be able to supply links to online accounts where they have daily repeated the mantra for the day. ie qualification for the post is to be a clone.

I love the response tweet from someone asking whether they can work remotely as it's for the London office.

"Just identify as someone living in London."

In all seriousness, it does appear that in the future social media accounts will unavoidably form part of a candidate's application, no matter how private your settings. Something to warn your children about.

But if then something crawls out of the woodwork like rubber wankman, then they know that The Times or The Spectaor (and Mumsnet of course) will help to shine that spotlight.

Part of the job will be monitoring Mumsnet. It's part of their Comms strategy to demonise Mumsnet and the wrong crowd feminism that Munroe Bergdorf claims is all about having a uterus. Having read their incoherent nonsense in GQ about this don't expect any improvement soon.
Jake Edwards also wants to see the “spousal veto” removed. “If you are married and your spouse decides that they don’t want you to change your name, or not get legal recognition as your gender, they can veto the whole process,” he explained. “So, say you’re in the process of maybe getting divorced from someone who did come out to you as an accepted you. They can stop you from being legally recognised.”
www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/transgender-meaning

Are they vetting for WrongThink?

If you follow the wrong person or like the wrong tweet I guess you're out of contention. But anyone promising to Punch A Terf...?

I think they want to screen out any more rubbermen. It’s not a good look for a children’s charity. They wouldn’t have concluded that on their own but Tesco won’t like it

I wonder what their diversity and inclusion clause is like. Any benefits?

@Binterested

I think they want to screen out any more rubbermen. It’s not a good look for a children’s charity. They wouldn’t have concluded that on their own but Tesco won’t like it

Out or in? Tesco won’t care. Nor will amazon, Starbucks, Audible etc etc etc.

I think possibly they want to screen out liabilities, but also moles.

Let's face it, NSPCC rubber man wasn't very careful to hide it, was he. Surely most self respecting rubber men could do better than that? How did Jess Bradley get busted, was Jess doxxed?

They don't care about dodgy connections or dubious morals. They don't give a crap about actual safeguarding, remember? They're getting for wrong think. You don't actually think they're checking to see that any prospective employee is a sensible person do you?

This isn't about rubber wankman-sifting dear vipers, it's about us. It's to make sure no applicant has ever pressed like on JK Rowling or similar.

*vetting

Somebody reading this needs to apply for that sharpish. Fascinating.