Harry’s doing bad day for S organisation again...

[GiantKitten]

Says it’s tomorrow

m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100038073817732&lst=693415542%3A100038073817732%3A1599319941

Jo March comment on that article: spot on in every way.

The former Permanent Secretary at the DfE (Jonathan Slater - now let go) - won an award from Stonewall for his advocacy. It's on their website.The DfE gives large grants to Stonewall.

The former head of the EHRC (David Isaacs), which is meant to give accurate guidance on the implementation of the Equality Act, used to be Chair of Stonewall.

The Govt. and Civil Service therefore seem to have been allowed to become a wing of the unelected lobby group, Stonewall.

Yes Jo is amazing. Been spouting sebse from day one . Many have tried and failed to take her down.

Yep. I look for her too. She posted something under my comment (probably something I'd forgotten).

I just was so over the moon when I saw the crowd funder. That really is fantastic.

Does anyone think there'll be more this week (apart from the fishy stuff). I seem to remember back when we were given a juicy bit of info, it was implied that it was going to be a bad week. Bit greedy isn't it .

I'm waiting for an MP to bring it up in the Commons

Aesopfable

Yes, good point!

The former Permanent Secretary at the DfE (Jonathan Slater - now let go) - won an award from Stonewall for his advocacy. It's on their website.The DfE gives large grants to Stonewall.

The former head of the EHRC (David Isaacs), which is meant to give accurate guidance on the implementation of the Equality Act, used to be Chair of Stonewall.

The Govt. and Civil Service therefore seem to have been allowed to become a wing of the unelected lobby group, Stonewall.

God, it's just so damning isn't it.

The Times article is short and to the point. I know the case well and even so, I winced at the bluntness of "The guidance held that children could be guilty of criminal behaviour because of their thoughts, reactions or with whom they chose to be friends."

That's exactly what the guidance said,but it still makes my jaded self blink that the CPS issued it.

@FloralBunting

The Times article is short and to the point. I know the case well and even so, I winced at the bluntness of "The guidance held that children could be guilty of criminal behaviour because of their thoughts, reactions or with whom they chose to be friends."

That's exactly what the guidance said,but it still makes my jaded self blink that the CPS issued it.

That a publicly funded body could put that guidance out leaves me speechless. I hope every single person involved in the production of it is aware of their appalling overreach and are fucking quaking in their mendacious cowardly boots.

The guidance held that children could be guilty of criminal behaviour because of their thoughts, reactions or with whom they chose to be friends.
I wish they had put that in the first paragraph. I'm not even a journalist but I know you're supposed to put your most attention grabbing points first. That opening is so dry I imagine only people who already know what's going on will have read much further. So while I'm pleased they've covered it, I'm a bit disappointed to see the Times pulling their punches, and also kind of wondering why.

Can you only see Times comments if you’re a subscriber?

Hazeldine you just have to keep scrolling down.

The comments on that article are gold. I've had all of mine published now (some delays). I only hope people are reading all the comments and taking them in.

Jo March is great, but I sometimes wonder what the overlap is between the people who comment on the Times articles and the people who post here. Quite big, I suspect.

@RoyalCorgi

Jo March is great, but I sometimes wonder what the overlap is between the people who comment on the Times articles and the people who post here. Quite big, I suspect.

Hopefully though the Times will get a wider readership.

@RoyalCorgi

Jo March is great, but I sometimes wonder what the overlap is between the people who comment on the Times articles and the people who post here. Quite big, I suspect.

I'd have said the majority of the comments on Times articles are by men. As to the women - I noticed on name among the comments this piece which was formerly a NN on here - iirc someone who left about the time the extra trans guidelines came in. Could be a coincidence, of course.