Why are Primark promoting "Found Family"

[WandaWomblesaurus]

www.primark.com/en-us/a/inspiration/special-occasions/celebrating-found-families

"A Found Family Is About Finally Feeling Whole, Something That Might Be Absent In Your Biological Family, Like A Full Set Of Acrylic Nails Or A Good Pair Of Fake Lashes. It’s A Community You Choose, Whose Values And Honesty Speak To Your Own."
- Jude & Michael, Germany

What???

I have been raising safeguarding issues about this group.

But hey, thanks for confirming all readers that you think 'raising safeguarding issues' is 'linking a group to paedophilia'.

‘safeguarding’ issues that you have not had with other signatories.

Only the queer organisation signing the Feminist Declaration raises these ‘safeguarding issues’ for you.

This is just more empty accusations.

Considering the list cannot be located, it seems rather ludicrous to state that we only have ‘targeted queer organisations’. Who knows?

It is actually ridiculous now.

We are discussing IGLA because it was a very large and influential organization that has failed not only to ensure the language was clear on release, but then released an unprofessional statement that failed to even adequately address the issue. When safeguarding issues come up, we address them. Both in our personal lives and on this board.

Your accusations are meaningless by this stage. But I will keep on refuting your accusations because people are still reading. And everytime you post, they see the tactics you use. You seem incapable of contributing anything but these personal attacks.

Is this thread not about Primark?

I thought it was?

They’re not empty accusations.

I gave an example of an organisation which is not focused on LGBT+ issues, which signed the same declaration as ILGA.

You have never raised any safeguarding concerns about that organisation, or invested any time into attacking companies that provide them with funding.

You gave an organisation that had LGBT member groups.

And by the way, how did you know about them? Did you Google for signatories? Or did you already know the group?

What's utterly ridiculous TeaKlaxon is you calling gay people homophobic when you appear to not even grasp the concept.

We often encounter this risible jabber jabber when people attempt to use a concept they think doesn't exist to shame women concerned with safeguarding.

Unless, of course, your refusal to supply your understanding of homosexuality is for a reason different to not wanting to display your own homophobia.

Always a possibility.

You gave two examples, one of which is already known for safeguarding issues.

How about you datun?

If this isn’t about linking an LGBT+ organisation to paedophilia becuase they’re LGBT+, can you point out when you’ve expressed similar concerns about other signatories which weren’t LGBT+, or their corporate funders?

Or like other posters, does your concern only arise when you can use it to bash an LGBT+ organisation?

And again, I have looked on that organisation’s website and there is nothing that is easy to find that tells me anything about these donations you talk about.

You have provided nothing to substantiate your claims at all.

So, yes.

Making a ludicrous accusation that I have not made comment about the safeguarding concerns for any organisation which doesn’t represent LGBT groups on the now non-locatable list of signatories is just that. Ridiculous! Who fucking knows when that list disappeared.

Where were the donations announced? Was their great fanfare? When were they? Before or after the declaration?

Did any media publish that that organisation signed the declaration? Or did you just Google for signatories and it came up?

Again, where is the list?

Yet you demonise us for not checking the list and discussing their part in this very concerning and poorly worded clause.

And you are trying to convince people you are not being ridiculous? Good luck with that.

Having LGBT members doesn’t make an organisation an LGBT organisation FFS.

It’s like saying the National Council of Voluntary Organisations is a gay organisation because some of its members are LGBT+ groups.

The coalition I linked to is not an LGBT+ organisation and ILGA are. That is the difference and that is why you attack the latter but not the former.

Hahaha!!

Oh, I'm sorry, you're serious?!

I obviously haven't been very clear. Which is unusual for me, to be honest.

Let me clarify - I don't give a flying fuck what you think.

Every time my attention is drawn to a dodgy organisation who don't understand, or are actively trying to dismantle safeguarding I'm going to criticise it up the fucking wazoo.

Really, really loudly. And if there's something to hide, I hope that MSM pick it up.

I'm sick to death of the insidious and relentless dismantling of child safeguarding. Oxfam defaming children's charity founders, and books of men in kinky fetish gear being given to children.

The only people who are petrified of having their feet held to the fire are those who think they are going to go up in a puff of instant smoke.

ILGA are now on everyone's radar. If they're kosher, they've got nothing to worry about.

Something I would've thought anyone defending them would understand.

Calling people names and trying to shame them for demanding accountability really isn't the smartest move. Especially when you're attempting to leverage a concept that you either don't understand, disagree with, or are a proponent of yourself.

It's very, very common by the way. If I had a penny for every dingbat who tried to leverage homophobia to shame women, when they don't even a believe in it...

For the love of God try and think of something else.

Having said all that, I'm thoroughly enjoying hellofabore's takedown of your non arguments.

So that’s a no then?

No record of criticising any of the other Feminist Declaration signatories for ‘safeguarding issues’? Just the queer one?

Thanks for confirming.

So, you have no list, yet expect us to go and find the signatories.

You won’t disclose how you knew about the Coalition, but expect that WE should know. Even though it certainly seems to be a minor signatory that is in no way comparable to the power and influence of IGLA which is very well known and influential.

And IGLA was reported. Yet, that is somehow our fault too. That IGLA was reported and not the Coalition that I saw on any media. Perhaps because IGLA probably did a press release to publicise their involvement, and that media picked it up.

Mmm…. There is that PR again.

You have ascribed motivations to me and others about linking IGLA to paedophilia, ignoring other potential safeguarding issues that removal of the age of consent would have. Because, that is YOUR singular focus and not mine.

We continue to go around and around.

No. I have not proven any point of yours. You are simply entrenched in your own prejudices here. You continue to show how ridiculous your claim is.

Honestly TeaKlaxon 🤣

Your defence of that dodgy statement is not to defend it!

But to invent motivations, for people you don't know, using a concept you can't define!!

Along with demanding explanations for why people aren't talking about a list you can't produce!!

Followed by a triumphant 'A Ha!'

As long as it doesn't involve any kind of decision making process, which I'm going to guess it doesn't, please don't give up the day job. 🤣🤣🤣

Just the queer one

Ooh, ooh, can we have a definition of queer too?

You know for the sake of, er, what's that thing...you know, um, oh yeah...clarity.

Now all I've got going round in my head is song lyrics

Oh, you better watch out, you better not cry
You better not pout, I'm telling you why
Helleofabore is coming to town
Oh, she's making a list and checking it twice
She's gonna find out who's naughty or nice
Helleofabore is coming to town

I have already explained what the Declaration was supporting.

I am mainly now just enjoying you lot tying yourselves in knots for only making these links when gays are involved.

I don't think some posters can get their head around the fact that some posters on this very thread could be....gasps...homosexuals!!!!!

Care to tell us all how the Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim Societies would not be also representing their LGBT members interests?

I somehow think your example of, what was it, the National Council of Voluntary Organisations lacks the relevance to be used as a comparator to the Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim Societies. The National Council of Voluntary Organisations is an umbrella organization for 17000 organisations with volunteers. Hardly all that relevant to LGBT needs, is it? Or are you going to try to leverage some aspect to make your point? I look forward to that.

Just to repeat, the Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim Societies seems to be incomparable to IGLA. In influence, and size. Did Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim Societies feature in the press release about the declaration?

Or did it merely appear on the list of signatories? You know, the one that seems to be not locatable. The one that you insist that we should have memorised and then targeted for supporting a clause in the declaration they signed up to that was so poorly worded that it raised major concerns about safeguarding.

Because, I think you really are only showing the depth of your own prejudice here. You have doubled down on a ridiculous accusation.

And you seem to not be able to understand how PR works at all.

Not mentioning a smaller, less influential organisation that is just one of many, may stem from some kind of hate, or… here’s a thing!!! It might be that any media priortises who is mentioned due to the degree of influence that that organization has.

Blimey!! Imagine that! Imagine a media outlet or even, you know, the main contributors to the declaration prioritising organisations that will get them media coverage.

FFS! It really isn’t hard to understand.

You have grasped at straws and it simply has remained a ridiculous accusation.

You mean like the posters who seem determined to ignore that I am a gay woman who has lived through the last time homophobes tried to claim a link between gays and paedophilia?