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 👏

The words 'teach', 'grandmother', 'to', 'suck' and 'eggs' have, for some reason, sprung into my mind.

Sorry, peeps.
I seem to have come back from my relaxing dog walk, read a couple of posts, and cross-posted with about half a dozen people.

<and breathe>

😂

Interestingly the Nolan Principles of Public Life are far more explicit about what is effectively corruption:

1.2 Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

Odd that the civil service code is so watered down about integrity

It wasn't a reply to you

Anyway, if I can summarise what I've learnt:

1. "The Left" doesn't mean left wing politicians or left wing views. It means civil servants and universities, or the public sector I guess.
2. "Capture" doesn't mean an organised plan. It just refers to the shared views of civil servants/universities or public sector writ large.

That's pretty helpful actually. As if you genuinely believe the public sector are not fit for purpose and are "a blob" then you will be drawn to the right wing/small state view.

What I still don't understand is what that has to do with voting Labour or being a "soc fem".

Why do you consider small state to be right wing but the opposite not left wing?

Oh Jesus wept.

1. No one has said the left doesn't include politicians and obviously political activists. No one. Read more carefully.
2. Re capture, you might like to read this https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document It's been around a while.

No one has said that the public sector as a whole isn't fit for purpose (though parts of it look as if they might be). As someone who has been employed by various arms of the state for almost my entire working life, I can tell you that there is a lot of good in it.

So no, I'm not being drawn to the right. I've been ejected by the centre and am now politically homeless. But yeah, do push on with maintaining that people who believe that institutional capture is a thing are going to be sucked to the right.

I mean, it obviously IS a thing.

OK I'm really not sure why you are getting so weird about this.

We are having a conversation about "ideological capture" and "the left". Both terms I personally find hyperbolic, unspecific and slightly offensive. As I've said and I've explained why.

So far I'm none the wiser as to specifically why posters feel it's OK to stereotype and scapegoat "the left" in the way they do..and the Dentons report doesn't help.

I think you agree with me, which is why you are getting annoyed. But what you don't seem to be able to do is read the other posts that I'm replying to and follow the thread of the conversation. I'm not just pulling it out of my backside that posters repeatedly go on about "the left" and "ideological capture".

It makes it almost impossible to have a discussion.

Like this for example

To me, the left is a very broad term that takes in organisations like the SWP and the WRP, but also parts of the Labour Party and even, at a push, elements of the Liberal Democrats. Historically, it might be difficult to characterise what they all have in common, except perhaps a resistance to unfettered capitalism and a commitment to greater equality.....but the obvious thing that they all now have in common is an insane and deluded commitment to identity politics

All of us that someone who has characterised as the left have an insane and deluded commitment to identity politics

I find that incorrect, insulting and offensive. And I'm barely on the left.

It's stereotyping and it's not OK.

And I'm barely on the left.

People I know that consider themselves "barely on the left" are not to be found running around policing people's criticisms of left wing overreach.

But it's completely ok for you to stereotype posters on this board. To paint broad brush caricatures of views that deviate from your world view. You continually dance around around on the head of a pin.

If you say so

I haven't. God it is so tedious. Comment on a thread, get told to start my own. Start my own,still have to get bashed 🙄

Cassie, posting the Civil Service Code of Conduct as "proof" of lack of institutional capture is a level of "It Never Happens" that would put the most rabid, naive, teenage TRA anime character to shame.

I imagine that you believe that it is possible for an organisation to be institutionally or systemically racist or sexist? Yet somehow immune to other forms of ideological capture?

Have you heard of "SEEN Networks"? Why do you think these organisations need to exist?

Sector networks
Professional organisations defending sex-based rights, including sex equality and equity networks for employees in different sectors.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/category/sector-networks/

I think (but stand to be corrected) that the first SEEN was in the Civil Service.

Why SEEN exists and has a place within the Civil Service
https://seen-network.uk/posts/2022-11-22-on-tolerance/

Other Sex Equality and Equity Networks
https://seen-network.uk/other-seens/

I think you dismissed an article from the Telegraph out of hand earlier even though you also claim to consult a range of sources across the political spectrum? Apologies if I am confusing you with another PP.

I think that article reported on a letter written by dissident civil servants. This story is based on official guidance leaked to the Telegraph:

Parliamentary staff urged to police pronouns and ‘identify transphobia’
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4805464-parliamentary-staff-urged-to-police-pronouns-and-identify-transphobia

If you haven't come across it yet, I can recommend this thread which has been running since 2018:

Break it down for me?
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me?

If you are still not convinced, STILLTish's blog, Gender Critical Woman, has a Category "Institutional Capture" with many examples:
https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/category/institutional-capture/

That is not why i posted it.
I posted it because of the implication the civil service is "the left" and the other poster commenting that they aren't impartial. Impartiality is in their employment contract. That was quite clear if you read the posts.

I also did not dismiss the article out of hand. I dismissed Badenoch out of hand. I cannot stand the last administrations "deep state" nonsense and don't believe a word she says without proof because she is a liar.

As for the other thread, like Dentons I am familiar with it because I've posted here for a very long time. I'm also GC. So not sure what your point is.

Here you go bosky. It was only the last page but appears you didn't read it, saves me typing it all again

Please don't claim to be a victim Cassie. This is your first response to another poster on this thread.

I think this is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. I don't even know where to start with it- it's pure fiction

😂

Please don't claim to be a victim Cassie. This is your first response to another poster on this thread.

And it was an excellent post, at that, that that poster made, not sure why it was dismissed in that way.

I've seen people deleted for posting biscuits.

I'm also GC

So you say, but on another thread you defined this as simply understanding sex is immutable without any criticism of the concept of gender. You also stated you believed all men should not always be excluded from women’s spaces.

Cassie, posting the Civil Service Code of Conduct as "proof" of lack of institutional capture is a level of "It Never Happens" that would put the most rabid, naive, teenage TRA anime character to shame.

Quite.

Hmm.
That's an extreme misrepresentation of what I said.
Like "multiculturalism", you would need to define "womens spaces" to be accurate.

But I really can't be bothered rehashing this. I'll take it as a compliment you are keeping notes 😂

It's not what I did. The misrepresentation is tedious.