Article by Janice Turner on Eleanor Francis case

[FarriersGirl]

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/finally-some-sense-on-whitehall-gender-policy-xlp3klllm

Sorry can't seem to get the share token to work but maybe someone else can. Worth reading Janice does not hold back! And also an article by Jenni Russell gunning for Kei Starmer and the right to single sex spaces.

My bad.... the Jenni Russell article is from July last year but popped up on the app as a related topic.

Superb piece, as ever from JT

Made me reflect again on the changes of the last few years.

Five, maybe even three years ago I'd have been pathetically grateful for one such ruling/piece every few months. Right now, feels like we're getting something every few days.

Still so much more to do, but incredible progress.

Interesting article. http://archive.today/GhEes

Sharetoken:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/9aee3d7b-b92e-4db1-a0d6-402d4d6a0f97?shareToken=011fdd74d8b80dacd3d715dde6221c5f

Excellent article, clear and well-informed as ever.

My name is a clue to how I feel about some of Turner's perspectives but there's no denying she's a gifted writer and this is yet another remarkably clear piece that lays out the issues so well.

But first she wrote to Fiona Ryland, the government chief people officer, to say principles mattered more to her than money. If DCMS and DSIT admitted their gender guidance was illegal and offered to revise it, Frances would settle in return for a decent job reference and £1.
This was declined and the case rumbled on, until this week she received an exceptional payout of almost £117,000 net. Why did Whitehall fold? Because the case had passed from HR — which still operates under Stonewall law, as if the Forstater ruling never happened — to government lawyers who saw they would lose, and that senior civil servants would have to explain at a public tribunal what Frances calls a “politicised climate of fear”.…
…
Because all of it is madness. Why was each department allowed to make up its own gender policy rather than adhere to one central guide based upon a clear, legal reading of the Equality Act? Why aren’t civil servants promoted on the basis of talent, not an ideological test of whether they can recite the “correct” EDI dictums? Why are some government departments, including the DCMS, still members of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme, shelling out scant public funds to win gold stars for policies that are both illegal and ridiculous, such as erasing the word “mother” from government documents on maternity rights?

I agree with you @UltraLiteLife I am a former CS and most of the mandatory training was online and in my view patronisingly awful! A lot of people [myself included] just did it because we had to and took little or no notice of the messaging. As we know it only needs a few zealots to take control of this sort of thing and it spreads like a disease, but the culture makes it very difficult to challenge.

It is a great article. We really need other government departments to take notice.

Interview with Eleanor in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/953d0918-0784-4676-80d5-08f446923925?shareToken=baffe88dbebec1f66a5cdab0db8f5bd1

“In August 2022, she considered applying for a promotion that would have made her a senior civil servant. It was then she realised that she would have to be assessed by a panel made up of three junior staff who were “self-selected as EDI champions” and had helped put together the division’s diversity strategy. The panel would assess her commitment to inclusion and then report to the hiring manager.

Frances thought if she were interviewed she would either make her true view known or feel forced to misrepresent her opinions. “It was an ideological litmus test for entry into the senior civil service,” she said. “I didn’t think I could even say that some people think it’s impossible to change sex, and that’s a view worthy of respect. I didn’t feel I could stay silent any more.” She withdrew her application.”

Duplicate post. Deleted.

Duplicate post. Deleted.

That makes it sound as though entry into the senior civil service is dependent passing an assessment by junior staff members. Is that really how it works?

I am in awe of Jt’s ability to clearly and succinctly explain things - never a word wasted.

unlike the vast waste of public money involved in this case and the insight into a bloated, partisan, inefficient civil service.

Yes I’m boggled by that! Promotion in the civil service is dependent on satisfying the whims of junior staff who have self selected as EDI champions??

why do I suspect their EDI wouldn’t be encompassing eg issues relating to maternity

I started to redo the course “Civil Service Values” a couple of weeks back. I realized I hadn’t completed it last year and vaguely wondered why, because it is mandatory.

I was only a few pages in when I saw they were misrepresenting the EA, suggesting we must not discriminate on nine grounds, seven of which reflected the act, one of which was incorrect (gender instead of sex) and another (gender reassignment) which had the false “gender identity” written in brackets after it.

I’m still trying to decide if I should challenge it. Last year, I failed to do it during my probationary period. Now I feel my job is a little more secure, but I think I will try to discuss it first with someone in the SEEN network.

I would like it changed. I am very uneasy having uncompleted mandatory training, but more uneasy about completing it without challenging the false information.

I think that you can challenge this from quite a neutral perspective ie that you note that the language used does not reflect the language in the EA and that you would expect the authors of the training to understand that gender is no longer a synonym for sex.

Good idea to talk to the SEEN network @PriOn1. Given the outcome of Eleanor's case and the publicity surrounding it it may be a good time to push back on this.

I agree. I challenged the DEI woman at my Corporate Induction and she was genuinely surprised to find “gender” was not in the EA, but to give her credit, she acknowledged I was correct and I was not discriminated against by anyone in the group for having pointed it out.

My position is slightly complicated as the course suggests contacting my line manager with any problems. Both my line manager and the head of services have pronouns in their emails. I want to consult with someone in SEEN first about the best approach.

Even if I do approach it in a neutral manner, I am concerned it might cause division between me and my line manager. We currently get on well and he supports me in enforcing reasonable adjustments to the letter, when my previous line manager didn’t.

Can anyone point me to an archived version of the janice turner article please, or a fresh share token?
Thanks

here @Gofastboatsmojito
https://www.thetimes.com/article/9aee3d7b-b92e-4db1-a0d6-402d4d6a0f97?shareToken=b5d1830b91d06136e7fb257ef2cb2b49

Thanks @Igneococcus

Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley, another civil servant, is also busy fighting a legal case over gender identity theory.

In her case a court judgment this week has dismissed the claimant's application for anonymity.

Elspeth says: We opposed the application because we strongly believe in the principle of open justice, a principle that should apply to all. Furthermore, we think it is usually implausible for a transgender person to assert that their biological sex is a secret (which was one of the arguments put forward by the claimant as to why anonymity should be granted). It is also important that claimants are not emboldened by the opportunity to hide behind a veil of anonymity in order to bully their colleagues and attempt to dictate policy in the Civil Service via the courts.

The full hearing in Mrs Samantha Tempest (Claimant) v (1) Rural Payment Agency (Respondent) (2) Defra (Respondent), & Sex Equality and Equity Network Ltd (Intervenor) is scheduled for November 2025 for 14 days.

I know that there was another gender/civil servant case, involving a male colleague, where there was a crowdfunded to help pay legal fees but can’t seem to find it now.

I'll never forget one of these institutional drivel diversity trainings where they were sanctimoniously preaching about the cause du jour, whatever it was, racism probably, white people doing all the talking, when one of the senior members in the audience stood up and said,"I understand this is about inclusion. I am Jewish. Could you tell me why you have scheduled this mandatory meeting during Yom Kippur?"

“I know that there was another gender/civil servant case, involving a male colleague, where there was a crowdfunded to help pay legal fees but can’t seem to find it now.”

I did a search for crowdjustice and SEEN and it was the second result.

Andreas Mueller

12 days to go for the stretch target.

Next dates 22nd and 23rd April,

On 22 April, the tribunal will decide whether the claimant should be granted anonymity. We are opposing the application for anonymity because we strongly believe in the principle of open justice, and we hope that the tribunal will follow the recent judgments in Peggie and Tempest (the 'parallel' case that my friend Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley is involved in).

On 23 April, we will try to have the claim against me struck out on the grounds that it is vexatious and has no reasonable prospect of success. Demonstrating that a claim has no reasonable prospect of success is a high bar for us to clear, but we are determined to give it our best shot. This is in no small part because we want to dispose of the claim without having to call on you generous people to fund my case through to a lengthy final hearing