Some thoughts on "The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht" and the NationalLibrary of Scotland's censorship of it.
1/12
The book's importance is that it tells the story of an astonishing grass roots movement involving women of all ages, classes, political views, mediated through ......
2/12
........ Mumsnet, women’s groups, official & unofficial networks in political parties, within professions, in feminist organisations, volunteers, lawyers acting pro bono & many others, women learning about the law, doing the research, demonstrating, speaking, arguing, ....
3/12
... writing, informing the public & funded by donations from ordinary women.
They did so in the face of insults, attacks, being told “No Debate, their concerns were not valid,” accusations of every sort of “ism” & “phobia,” loss of jobs, contracts, professional isolation...
4/12
.... and so on.
And now Scotland's National Library has continued this by refusing to have in an exhibition an important book about a significant political, social and legal movement, a book chosen by ordinary people.
Politicians, political commentators and other .....
5/12
.... organisations would do well to understand how & why this movement happened & how it worked. This is politics in the raw: real, passionate & effective. They might contrast it with how they tied themselves to & funded lobby groups who sought to embed gender self-ID .....
6/12
.... without bothering to consult or get agreement or think about anyone other than those who wanted it. It was a dishonest malicious way of proceeding.
One example described in this book will suffice: the deliberate decision in 2019 to make female prisons the place .....
7/12
..... where they would embed self-ID regardless of the law to create a precedent for the rest of the public sector, a decision recorded in writing, such was their arrogance.
Targeting vulnerable, voiceless women without the vote, women no-one really cares about & who ....
8/12
.... are often the victims of male violence, by placing dangerous male prisoners with them – a practice which continues to this day – is not a progressive civil rights cause.
9/12
Hubristic politicians heard only what they wanted to hear from those they funded to tell them.
Nemesis will involve learning to follow the law and think about the consequences of the mantras they have so blithely and unthinkingly been chanting like a child’s catechism.
10/12
Censoring this book because some of the library's staff don't like it is just another version of “be kind” ie don’t make the men feel bad.
No.
You don’t get to tell us – again – that we should put your feelings first. We’ve won the right not to be forced to do that.
11/12
That is the point of the legal victories culminating in the For Women Scotland case.
Difficult as this appears to be for commentators, politicians and the library to grasp, the important thing about women’s definition in law, women's rights and women's activism .....
12/12
.... is not what some men or employees feel about them.
Women have been saying this for the best part of a decade. At least.
Pay attention this time.
@threadreaderapp - please unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#PostOfficeScandal
A 🧵
1/13 This evening there is the first episode of a four part drama – Mr Bates vs The Post Office. It is a must see, if only in the hope that it will bring home to a wider public the scale and human impact of what has rightly been called .....
2/13
.... the worst miscarriage of justice in English legal history.
It is to be hoped that such public interest might put pressure on politicians to put right – and without further delay – matters which are – or should be – an affront to the conscience of the British state.
3/13
It is shaming to see from the evidence given during the Williams Inquiry how so many from my own profession behaved so unprofessionally, incompetently and potentially worse, both during the events which are the subject of the Inquiry and during the Inquiry itself.
1/9 On the Brand story there are three underlying stories of interest in danger of being ignored.
1. How it is that celebrating and rewarding sleazy, crude people results in sleazy, crude people behaving in sleazy and crude ways, if not worse. We seem to have ......
2/9 .... abandoned any sense of public decency or standards or behaviour and, far too often, praised and rewarded laddish, disgusting and immoral behaviour and then act all shocked when we see the results of such behaviour. See football. Or TV. See also ....
3/9 .... the City which turned a blind eye to bad / illegal behaviour by its "stars" if they made big enough profits. How did that turn out?
2. How women - who are often, though not invariably - the victims of such behaviour are treated when they speak up about it.
1/16
Some thoughts on the Iain Anderson interview by Beth Rigby:-
When it is a topic he doesn't want to obfuscate about it he can be admirably clear in response eg his answers on the return of medals to those thrown out of the army for being gay.
2/16
This contrasts with his other answers where he is incapable, even when pressed, of giving a straight "yes" or "no" or a clear answer. E.g. on whether he would speak to the LGB Alliance. He will speak only to those who want to achieve the same as he wants.
3/16
There is a similar obfuscation when it comes to his answers on whether it is "bigoted" for lesbians not to want to have sex with people with male bodies or whether women needing intimate care can insist on this being given only by those of the female se
@ewansomerville@MForstater@Telegraph Here are some more. 1. What due diligence did Mermaids do in relation to the appointment of Dr Jacob Breslow as trustee? 2. What records of this due diligence did they keep? 3. Who made the decision to appoint him? 4. Who approved it?
@ewansomerville@MForstater@Telegraph 5. Were they aware of his writings about paedophilia? 6. If so, how - and on what basis - did they satisfy themselves that he was suitable to be a trustee of a children's charity? 7. If not, why not? 8. Why did they apply to keep his name of the public register of trustees?
@LucyHunterB@AudreySuffolk Is it worth making that point expressly to them? Maxwell, for instance, got away with it because despite a report describing him as unfit to run a public company, the DTI took no action to bar him. Similarly, the regulator at the time of his pensions raid (IMRO) was ineffectual.
@LucyHunterB@AudreySuffolk It is worth spelling out to them & the relevant Ministers what they need to do, that they will be under scrutiny & that if they perform the task inadequately, it will be their reputation on the line.
Based on what I have read, they need to look into at least the following:-
@LucyHunterB@AudreySuffolk 1. Is what they are actually doing in line with their stated charitable objectives? 2. Do they comply with their legal obligations - not simply those applying to charities but all applicable laws? 3. Are there inconsistencies or conflicts between what their representatives ....