Janet Murray is beginning to wonder what was the @#£%&@ point?

[theilltemperedmonster]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/3cc6a6f19cd81b9d

Her and me both.

It's a brilliant article. I hope everyone who works in the Civil Service reads it.

It's not just Whitehall, is it? The whole of the boss/lanyard class (politicians, public and charity sectors, unions, academia, arts and media etc etc) has looked at what the Supreme Court said, shaken their heads, and said 'nope, not doing that'. It's like it's 1984 and they're the Party Members and we're the Proles. And we can't even rely entirely on the judiciary.

I thought we might lose to some clever lobbying and a law change/new court decision. It never occurred to me they would just ..... refuse.

I know lots of people in the civil service who are just as frustrated as Janet.

It’s hard when you work in the civil service, and hoped that everything would change after the Supreme Court ruling. But no, I still don’t dare mention my views.

The Supreme Court ruled on the issue and it is the government’s responsibility to enforce that ruling.

Two successive Labour administrations undermining the rule of law is not healthy for our democracy. If they refuse to implement this ruling because they don’t like it, what else will they ignore because they don’t like it?!

I work in the CS and have mentioned my views here and there e g in survey responses where I have not always been anonymous. I have not always known who would read those responses and sometimes regret my candour. But generally I keep my views quiet.

As a long term Civil Servant I take impartiality very seriously and try to do the best I can for everyone, dealing sometimes with members of the public with views I find offensive.

That is the thing that is so aggravating, that some Civil Servants insist on using their privilege of a public sector workplace to soapbox their views and in some cases get others on their side, with the potential to affect policy making on occasion -and this behaviour is not challenged or stopped.

At least they've made clear that men aren't permitted in the women's toilets. I would actually agree that repetitively and argumentatively using someone's old name is unreasonably provocative but not accidently using it. I highly doubt anyone is going to be challenged for the latter in light of recent rulings.

I fully agree. It’s really concerning.

Didn’t they say it was “unenforceable in practice” or some such crap?

Archive https://archive.ph/CKhX9

Is it the government’s responsibility though? I didn’t think that was how civil law generally worked - surely it’s up to affected individuals to either bring a case, or to ask the EHRC to bring a case on their behalf.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5556178-trans-guidance-for-civil-servants-must-stay-secret-ministers-say?reply=153626224&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

According to a PP on another thread:

"The guidance is to ask people to use toilets and spaces appropriate for biological sex but they will not actively enforce it, as they say it isn’t possible. They have also reinforced the guidance that says it’s a disciplinary offence to deliberately call someone by the wrong pronouns etc."

I am more worried about the first sentence than the second. Clearly, correct toilet and changing room usage can be enforced via normal disciplinary procedures, and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. Employers know what sex their employees are, and, in any case, Schedule 3 permits exclusion of anyone who looks as if they are the wrong sex, whether they are or not. No need for genital inspections or original birth certificates!

It seems like they're going to operate a don't ask don't tell policy. Employees should complain to the H&SE.

As for the misgendering business, if we lived in an otherwise sane world, I could imagine employers not unreasonably asking employees to mis-sex their trans colleagues as a courtesy, to accommodate their niche beliefs and lifestyle (as one might for other minority religionists). We don't live in that sane world yet, though.

Unless they speak up their frustration is irrelevant. "All it takes for evil to flourish, is for good people to do nothing".

@theilltemperedmonster

As for the misgendering business, if we lived in an otherwise sane world, I could imagine employers not unreasonably asking employees to mis-sex their trans colleagues as a courtesy,

Yes, along with everything else, activists have also ruined "being kind", "being polite", and "social niceties" which used to allow people at work to rub along nicely, even with those they didn't particularly like. That's all gone now, because if you give one activist "politeness" they will all expect compliance. Give an inch, and they take a mile.

It's so clearly straight out of the three-year old's rule book (if I get them to say yes I can have a biscuit, that means I can have all of them, whenever I want), that I wonder how employers don't see it!

The whole of society, you could say Western civilisation, is predicated on the development of high trust societies.
Sure, there'll always be criminals and eccentrics pushing the boundaries of the rule of law, but we only work because the vast majority adhere to "the greater good".
That's why we don't tolerate housebreaking, shoplifting, flytipping etc etc.
Now that's all changing, and this deliberate flouting of the law that 99.9% adhered to with no controversy just two decades ago.
Imagine 20 years ago 99.9% knew driving the wrong way up.a one way road was wrong and didn't do it, is replaced today by a "special" group and it's supporters flouting this, expecting us to all dart out of the way, one group in society making up 51% most at risk of being crashed into, and we're all expected to suck it up.

I see where you're going with this, but I would say the driving metaphor is too fast and "active." To me, it's more like watching mold grow on your walls, and thinking, well, it's not too bad yet, I can't smell anything, my health is fine, and no one else has noticed yet, so I'll deal with it tomorrow.

For 20 years. And here we are.

I completely agree with this. The social contract is being broken all over the place.

An elite 'in' group get to just ignore the law with massive benefits to them, and the rest of us are supposed to just put up with it.

It's not just in this area either - it's people shoplifting at will, flytipping. Raping and sexually assaulting and getting derisory sentences or none at all. The way Henry Nowack was treated compared to his killer who used the 'racist' card.

I feel more and more that I'm a bloody idiot for working in a relatively poorly paid (though far better than some) job with a company that treats me badly rather than stealing things which would take less time, be more lucrative with apparently absolutely no consequence. There are definitely people who make their money nicking high end bikes I'm sure, because I know many people who've had these stolen and all they get told by the police is to claim on insurance even when they've located their bike being sold on a social media site - the police do nothing. I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling this way - in fact I know I am not.

Labour claim that they're 'improving worker's rights' but that only applies in the public sector and only in narrow circumstances as this civil service 'right think' policy shows. In the private sector it would take someone taking the company to employment tribunal to get any action and most workers can't afford to do this. Companies can and do break the law with impunity all over the place - the supreme court ruling being one example of many.

I think we're headed for dangerous times.

Sure, that's the structural deterioration. I'm highlighting more the moral imperative in society where we have to rub along and adhere to codes that are so obvious we don't even think about them consciously.
And then when these codes are broken, we pay the price for the present damage, and then told the codes were always wrong and the flaunting of them is the new "normal".
Yet even when the law is reasserted against the flaunting and reiterating the previous status quo was always correct, and still is, and will be into the future, the flaunting continues.
And previously law abiding bodies that are totally dependent on society as a high trust organism, acquiesce to the flaunting.
To watch previously respected organisations like the NHS, schools, academia, sports etc actively work to break/ignore/work around the law is eye opening to the co-opting of the liberal world we live in.

I think there's also possibly a tipping point for society where more and more people stop doing things the 'right' way - the way that enables our current way of life- because they've decided that's the only way to cope. E.g. fly tipping rather than having to pay for waste disposal when you're struggling with COL already. Shoplifting from a shop where staff are explicitly told not to stop shoplifters rather than working in the min wage job where you get sacked for trying to stop a shoplifter.

But then, eventually the tax take will be way down, and those paying taxes will be more and more squeezed leading to more and more people possibly deciding criminality pays.

Those in charge clearly don't really care about the rules and don't think the law matters, why should average Jo (Joseph/Joanne)?

I watched a Sky News piece 18 months ago as the asylum hotels phenomenon started ramping up, from Altrincham as a much loved and community focal point hotel was turned over to asylum housing.
There was a community meeting where a whole cross section of residents expressed, in very reasonable non hateful or bigoted ways, their worries and reservations.
Local Plod was in attendance, and the residents were continually interrupted by this jobsworth to be told that their views were unreasonable and bordering on hate speech, and if it continued, the meet would be shut down.
You could see everyone's hackles rise, every set of shoulders scrunch up, every face turn to a rictus frown.
People were told in no uncertain terms their way of life, one predicated on high trust including the ability to speak non hateful comments in a free fashion, was now off limits.
How many were radicalised to much more extreme opinions from that night, thru the whole period the Altrincham Cresta Court Hotel was used purely for migrants, because the tenets of a high trust/free speech society was compromised?

Historically, societies have been shown to get to this point, where laws are flouted left right and centre. Then fascists storm in and say they will sort it out. People are so grateful to return to a rule of law and by the time they realise who they gave power to, its too late.

I think 'it's wrong when somebody else does it, but if somebody else does it, I might as well do it too and it's not wrong when I do it because somebody else has already done it so why shouldn't I?'
is dangerous because it undermines the very values that people complain are being lost.

I can't control how other people behave, but I can make up my own mind about what is right/wrong/pro-social/anti-social - based on my 'average Jo/Joe' values, not what I see other people getting up to/getting away with.

I agree, we are definitely heading for societal breakdown, the government has lost control, public bodies are a law unto themselves, laws are ignored, so order will be the next thing to collapse.
That is all part of the plan though, post-modernism is after the modern, they have to destroy the modern world in order to bring in their Utopia. I don't think the useful idiots who are helping to destroy the world they live in realise that they're just being used as a cat's paw.

Well. That's cheerful.😬

Let's hope it doesn't come to that! (you're right, of course)