GOVERNMENT ADMITS EQUALITY DOES NOT INCLUDE MEN

When the government came in, one of its key themes was to look at government departments and quangos and see who should stay, who should go and whether some should be merged or subsumed. The Government's ironically called Equalities Department was one of them and was to be subsumed into the Home Office.

The new equality pages on the Home Office website make it clear what the government means by equality though. It says:

We lead on issues relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality matters; we have responsibility across government for equality strategy and legislation. 

Basically, the Home Office who lead on equality for the whole governmemnt now admit that equality does not relate to men (or boys).

I know this site keeps on saying it but the government are admitting it and they see no shame in doing so. Obviously, with the same people running the equalities section of the Home Office who were running the equalities department there is no surprise but it is the lack of shame that just is eye watering.

On the same section is the annual report of the equalities department. Not light reading but worth noting that the abolished Women's National Commission  cost £500,000 per year (no such thing as a men's national commission) and 65% of its employees are women - fancy that.

Posted by Skimmington 

Comments

[Bob]

Just go to show that the extensive detail in the EHRC form I submitted for their public opinion review (and their lack of a response) was just part-and-parcel of ignoring men and their needs and rights.

A system whereby the quangos issue the questionnaires to review themselves then produce a report on themselves is simply systemic corruption.

...and demonstrated by the contrived and skewed questions the EHRC had on their form.

For example; (I paraphrase) 'What key factors enabled the Commission to deliver the ten elements of ‘our promise’?'

followed by; 'What key factors constrained the Commission to deliver the ten elements of ‘our promise’?'

and the classic....
"How important do you think the use of the Commission’s unique powers and duties was in the delivery of the ten elements of our ‘promise’?"

The questions tend assume that the commission should exist in the first place and instead focus on 'how to improve the service', and by that read 'how to increase their powers'.

[John Kimble]

What are the odds that Harman or Featherstone wrote that sexist, discriminatory rubbish?

[Bob]

Indeed John.

On the surface their questionnaire seems benign but if you look at it it simply says;

"What powers do we have that you think we should keep?"

and

"What powers do we not have that you think we should get?"

That is truely the base of their propaganda; a select response group gleaned by low visibility of their review, enabling them to get the word out to their feminist friends who then respond en masse at the exclusion of others.

Secondly, skewed questionnaire questions subtly avoiding the issue of whether they are fit for purpose and instead focused on their own power consolidation and advancement.

Then they can publish their 'findings' such as the drivel that the Equal Opportunities Commission used to come out like, it will take at least two hundred 200 years to get 'equality for women'.

I mean, seriously! It might at this rate however take two hundred years for men to have the same rights as women if the EHRC and co remain in power.