Jane Clare Jones blog on Tommy Robinson

[CassieMaddox]

Just a really great read
https://janeclarejones.com/2024/07/28/tommy-robinson-far-right-populism-and-gender-criticism/

These are my favourite bits:

The greatest danger to women and girls has always been, and remains, the men inside their own houses. This is the nature, and the devastation, of endemic male sexual violence. It usually happens in the place, and with the people, who are supposed to be most safe. It would perhaps be comforting to imagine that we could easily identify the men who are dangerous – the Muslims, the brown ones, the ones in dresses – and then we could keep ourselves safe by keeping them out. But the argument materialist feminists made throughout the early years of the gender wars applies equally here: men are a statistical danger to women as a class and there is prima facie no way of working out which ones are dangerous and which ones are not.

The argument is no longer ‘guilt by association’ or ‘purity politics,’ it is now a) What even is the far right anyway?, b) The far right doesn’t mean anything because I was called far right for knowing men aren’t women, c) You people think anyone who disagrees with you is far right, and d) He is not far right anyway. That is, it has moved from claiming that association with the far right is either not happening or if it is happening has no impact on the substance of GC discourse, to people openly associating with the far right and recycling far right talking points while denying that the far right is the far right.

But what feminist women have tried, largely unsuccessfully, to get across, is that these kinds of men are not on ‘your side,’ if ‘your side’ is genuinely defending women’s rights. These men are on their side, and their side wants a largely white patriarchal nation, in which ‘their’ women know their place and are ‘protected’ only insofar as ‘protection’ means keeping them guarded from ‘other’ men.

The pictures at the end of the article are very illuminating too.

Brava JCJ 👏

So you only denied it for the Civil Service then?

Kemi Badenoch/Liz Truss et al. are full of shit and will blame anyone else for their own lack of competence.

I thought you were going to produce something objective, not the last Tory cabinet's "deep state" conspiracy theory. Should have guessed when I saw it was a Torygraph link.

I am so pleased Badenoch/Truss/Cates/ Braverman/Rees Mogg et al aren't in government and I can ignore their paranoia.

Anyway, here you go:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-code

As a civil servant, you are appointed on merit on the basis of fair and open competition and are expected to carry out your role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. In this code:

• ‘integrity’ is putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests
• ‘honesty’ is being truthful and open
• ‘objectivity’ is basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence
• ‘impartiality’ is acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well governments of different political persuasions

Well as usual, if you reread what I've written assuming noble intent you'll probably see I didn't "deny organisational capture happens in our institutions".

Reread it. Nope, you'll have to elaborate. Or not. It's up to you, and I'm sure people will draw from it what they will.

We know that is the theory.

A reminder of what you said Cassie

Women being let down by political parties over gender =/= the civil service, schools, universities, the arts etc etc being "captured".

So what did you mean?

🤣🤣🤣

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you believe that the civil service exists to execute the policy of the government of the day. I was suggesting that nobody except the OP actually believes it.

Isn't the entire plot of both Yes Minister and The Thick of It that that isn't the case?

I find this whole idea that "the right" is a monolithic hive mind that's "captured" everything and is an insidious enemy 1) anti democratic and 2) dangerous. Its also not based in reality. Women being let down by political parties over gender =/= the civil service, schools, universities, the arts etc etc being "captured".

The issue of "organisational capture" is real and should be challenged and highlighted. My problem is when this is extrapolated to being symptomatic of a much wider "capture". It all starts to sound a bit illuminati to me, and there are risks from the "them and us" mentality. Stereotyping is never a good idea.

Here is what I wrote and I've bolded the operative words:

I find this whole idea that "the left" is a monolithic hive mind that's "captured" everything and is an insidious enemy 1) anti democratic and 2) dangerous

I agree with underthinker that organisations have institutional cultures and some have been unhelpfully impacted by gender ideology or "captured". Also agree that's hyperbolic.

What I disagree with is that one example (or even a few) from large workforces means that you can make a blanket statement that "the left have captured" an entire institution.

Take your statement about "the police" for example. There are 43 police forces in the UK. They are different organisations under different chief constables/PCCs and all have different cultures and practices. To extrapolate from one police force and say "the police are captured" is very hyperbolic, not rational.

Same with schools. NHS trusts. Civil service. Universities. They are all collections of organisations headed by different people with their own individual cultures.

If there was a problem with systematic "capture" of the public sector the only conceivable, realistuc place that could be coming from was the Government of the day, as that is the only body that has consistent influence over the whole public sector. The government for the past 14 years was the Conservatives. So again, the idea "the left" are responsible for "capture" doesn't bear scrutiny.

But even assuming it were true, what's your solution? Get rid of all public institutions? More centralised government control? Direct voting on every aspect of public life? Quickly one starts to run out of road with a democracy. Which is why I find the whole thing dangerous.

Take your statement about "the police" for example. There are 43 police forces in the UK. They are different organisations under different chief constables/PCCs and all have different cultures and practices. To extrapolate from one police force and say "the police are captured" is very hyperbolic, not rational.^^

Name one police force that hasn't put out a dodgy statement about gender identity ideology at some point. The capture is top down. It comes from the College of Policing.

Where does the instruction to the College of Policing come from? Or did they just decide to do it off their own bat?

If there was a problem with systematic "capture" of the public sector the only conceivable, realistuc place that could be coming from was the Government of the day, as that is the only body that has consistent influence over the whole public sector.

It doesn't need to come from a "body" in a vacuum so your argument is founded on a false premise. It comes from a cultural movement. Which has good things about it, but also bad ones.

It also comes from academia, to a large extent, as Jane Clare Jones would acknowledge.

All of these universities offer degree courses in Professional Policing, licensed by the College of Policing:

• Bangor University
• Birmingham City University
• Buckinghamshire New University
• Canterbury Christ Church University
• Cardiff Metropolitan University
• Coventry University
• De Montfort University
• Edge Hill University
• Lancaster University with Blackpool & The Fylde College
• Leeds Trinity University
• Liverpool John Moores University
• Newcastle College University Centre
• Newman University, Birmingham
• Northumbria University
• Nottingham Trent University
• Sheffield Hallam University
• Staffordshire University
• Teesside University
• University College London
• University of Bedfordshire
• University of Central Lancashire
• University of Chester
• University of Cumbria
• University of Derby
• University of East Anglia with City College Norwich
• University of East Anglia with West Suffolk College
• University of East London
• University of Gloucestershire
• University of Hertfordshire
• University of Huddersfield
• University of Hull
• University of Law
• University of Northampton
• University of Plymouth
• University of Portsmouth
• University of Roehampton
• University of Salford
• University of South Wales
• University of Suffolk
• University of Sunderland
• University of Wales Trinity St David
• University of the West of England (UWE)
• University of West London
• University of Winchester
• University of Wolverhampton
• University of Worcester
• Wrexham University
• York St. John University

do you believe graduates of these courses exist in a vacuum, untouched by left wing influences in academia?

But even assuming it were true, what's your solution?

Recognising that conflicting rights exist.

Take sports. The IOC didn't decide that men are more important than women due to the British government.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5129412-two-female-boxers-set-to-compete-at-paris-2024-were-previously-disqualified-from-womens-world-championship-for-having-xy-chromosomes

And ban any external trainers, charter marks, employment rankings, awards, symbols, etc from the civil service and public sector bodies.

Yes, definitely @KielderWater

No, Cassie. It was nothing to do with your tone.
It was your use of the word 'the' rather than the word 'your' which caused the confusion. I think you said 'the basic concept'. If you'd said 'your basic concept', we'd have understood.

It was nothing to do with your tone. It was everything to do with your choice of actual words.

I used to work in central government, waaaaay back along. Nothing elevated, but with enough to scope to look around me.

I do have some concept of how these things can work. Yes, the civil service is, officially, neutral. But you'd need to be pretty stupid to believe that someone in an influential role, with some firm opinions, can't guide, prod and stymie a minister at least a little bit.

Most organisations represent the most common view of their employees (public sector) or their customers (private sector).
Then explain to me, please, why various public sector bodies have been sucking up to Stonewall this past decade, and pushing a trans rights agenda. Some of these public bodies shouldn't really have anything to do with stuff like this. The bloody Met, for example. Yes, sure, they need to think hard about how they police the LGB+ community. Do they need to do that by signing up as Stonewall champions when it is obviously contentious as hell and thousands of women are losing their shit about the conflict of rights?

Universities. Do please remind me again what happened to Kathleen Stock. And universities aren't captured. Really?

At no point have I said that the left is a 'hive mind' that has '"captured" everything'. I don't think that's true.

Actually, I wasn't talking about educational charities.
And David Cameron will, I think, be judged by history as a bit of a twerp.

So true.
The trans capture of the DfE came from the very top with the then permanent secretary Jonathan Slater, father of a "trans child", (his words not mine), allowed his self interest to dictate policy for schools. In clear breach of the Nolan Principles he accepted awards, wining and dining from Stonewall and gave them (& other lobby groups) uncritical funding and access to schools. They were then able to push for the removal of single sex spaces & sport for girls, turn the word woman and girls into something transphobic and unmentionable and worst of all, push the nonsense that children could be born in the wrong body with puberty blockers and sex change being the cure. He was of course, surrounded by numerous other "trans allies" in the civil service, writing policy and practice guidelines that put children at harm

Many schools accepted all this and now we have tens of thousands of girls thinking their bodies are flawed - but, as trusted adults have told them - changing sex is the solution.

Obviously there are countless other factors at work with a succession of clueless and incompetent Tory education ministers signing off on all this and everyone failing to exercise critical thinking.

That's the trouble with insisting that there are sacred castes who must not be questioned for... reasons. Keeping children safe relies on being able to challenge - no matter how powerful the individual or organisation.

What do we do about it? Pay attention to what's happening. Draw attention to it, campaign, pursue court cases and be persistent.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5127567-equal-treatment-bench-book-updated