Jump to content

UK Politics - Caesar: Most senators didn’t stab me, so all good!


Derfel Cadarn

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Sure I’ll stop using the term, though I will say it was used specifically in this context because it was the element that was at the heart of what was traumatising factor for the women involved. If there is a better term I am open to hearing it. 

Yes, and I get that, but so does everyone else, which is why it's sufficient now to use transwoman because everyone understands the point. Or, if they do not, they choose not to, and so there's still no reason to belabor the point.
Personally, in general, I would say I'm sympathetic to victims of abuse who find themselves unable or unwilling to share their experiences and make themselves vulnerable to people who share a similarity to their abuser(s). Trauma is insidious and the damage it can cause runs deep, and the places where you feel safe may be very constrained indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So presumably the trans woman would face the same lack of access, if not a greater one assuming all rape crisis centers aren’t open to trans women.

Like this entire time you’ve basically just been arguing that the needs and concerns of cis women supersede those of trans women while not considering suicide rates for trans women are much higher than for cis women.  

You clearly haven’t been reading this thread properly.

nobody has said trans women should be denied services. The ask was for additional sessions for single sex participants.

I’m not going to explain it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Sure I’ll stop using the term, though I will say it was used specifically in this context because it was the element that was at the heart of what was traumatising factor for the women involved. If there is a better term I am open to hearing it. 

I think AMAB and AFAB are the generally used terms (and also would include non-binary as well as trans people).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

The Rape crisis centre is basically saying that if you feel traumatised reliving your assault in front of a biological man, then.. well then you’d better go somewhere else.. except this is the only rape crisis centre in Sussex.

A point that, but it should be the state providing any additional necessary cover. A charity is entitled to decide what its purpose is. And this continues to be true even when the state make donations to it - the state does not have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm wondering if BFC has any insights he can share about this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61970399

 
Quote

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) said in a statement: "We can confirm that we are now monitoring the Metropolitan Police Service through our Engage process, which provides additional scrutiny and support to help it make improvements."

The Engage level of monitoring is used by HMICFRS when a force "is not succeeding in managing, mitigating or eradicating" a cause of concern.

(To be clear, I could completely understand if he wasn't able to.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

nobody has said trans women should be denied services. The ask was for additional sessions for single sex participants.

Sessions only cis women can attend and deny entry to trans women.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Personally, in general, I would say I'm sympathetic to victims of abuse who find themselves unable or unwilling to share their experiences and make themselves vulnerable to people who share a similarity to their abuser(s).

Trauma can be irrational and it’s important to recognize a person isn’t innately evil for feeling uncomfortable next to people who remind them of it.

Like for example a Veteran of the Afghanistan war may feel on edge  next to person who has central Asian ancestry because they’re reminded of the times they were captured and tortured

It’s still racism but it comes from a place of trauma so there’s a degree of empathy that can be offered—until they use it to attack to attack others.

Like the veteran then goes to a veteran charity  and demands group additional group session for everyone but central Asians, and then threaten a law-suit when they fail to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mormont said:

So I'm wondering if BFC has any insights he can share about this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61970399

 

(To be clear, I could completely understand if he wasn't able to.)

I probably can tell you less than the BBC about what it means to be honest. That said the first email I opened today was about a new 'this is how you grass on your friends' course, so that gives you some idea about where we are going. 

It's absolutley necessary, but I doubt we can change that much because frankly we just employ the wrong people (and we have to because we don't pay enough to get the right ones). 

I doubt there will be any significant change for people at my level and below other than we will start to be held to account for things we should be doing anyway. What happens is someone has a really good idea, monitors compliance for at most 3-6 months then moved on to something else, and slowly we stop doing it because someone else has a new idea that we put all our time and energy into. 

I actually worked for one of the final candidates for the top job, he's superb. However I'm dubious that the person at the top can make to much difference because we are just too unwieldy (and stubborn and resistant to change). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Curious on what you mean by this?

It's a job for people without better options now. The pay is shocking, a new recruit gets pretty much the same as I did 21 years ago. The sort of people we want aren't going to do nights, weekends, get spat at etc for 26 grand a year in London.

Also who would want to work for an organisation that gets vilified (some justified, some not) in the press so much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Spockydog notices #Carriegate trending again in the UK this morning. Checks to see why.*

Oh my word.

(though we may finally have an explanation for the baffling ministerial appointments of Gavin Williamson.)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

*Spockydog notices #Carriegate trending again in the UK this morning. Checks to see why.*

Oh my word.

 

 

 

Ugh.

I mean I don't actually care what those two get up to, I do care about the bizarre levels of nepotism going on around that relationship and levels of power and decision making available to the Prime Ministers wife

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Isn’t it just due to him cheating while married? If so eh, that seems like a private matter not worth commenting on.

Don't know about your place of work, but every firm I ever worked for would view getting caught having sex in the office as a sacking offence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2022 at 7:14 AM, BigFatCoward said:

It's absolutley necessary, but I doubt we can change that much because frankly we just employ the wrong people (and we have to because we don't pay enough to get the right ones). 

Not to rant about this, but I absolutely appreciate that. I don't think anyone in the public sector has had a pay rise worthy of the name since 2008. 

The UK economy has never really recovered from the 2008 crash. Employment's been high, but as a recent article I read noted (might've been the Economist?) that wasn't necessarily a good sign: it could have been explained by chronically low productivity growth. Successive Conservative governments have had no ideas to fix the economy other than bringing back the conditions that caused it to crash (cut taxes, allow house prices to rise).

MPs understand that they have to pay enough to attract qualified people to be MPs. They don't apply the same logic to teachers, nurses, firefighters, criminal lawyers, or police. 

On 6/29/2022 at 7:14 AM, BigFatCoward said:

I doubt there will be any significant change for people at my level and below other than we will start to be held to account for things we should be doing anyway. What happens is someone has a really good idea, monitors compliance for at most 3-6 months then moved on to something else, and slowly we stop doing it because someone else has a new idea that we put all our time and energy into. 

I actually worked for one of the final candidates for the top job, he's superb. However I'm dubious that the person at the top can make to much difference because we are just too unwieldy (and stubborn and resistant to change). 

Once problems become institutional, it can be really hard to turn things around. It takes sustained effort and the right conditions. 

Thanks for the insight though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Don't know about your place of work, but every firm I ever worked for would view getting caught having sex in the office as a sacking offence.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Don't know about your place of work, but every firm I ever worked for would view getting caught having sex in the office as a sacking offence.

 

yeah on second thought yeah that can be a dick move to do it when others could easily stumble across it in the workplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...