Alex W Dunlop

Sex & sexualities exist
Clear language enables vital communication
LGB & women’s rights need to be extended around the world, not removed where they do exist

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

“There are all kinds of courage,” said Dumbledore, smiling. “It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our adversaries, but just as much to stand up to your friends.” #WomenExist #SexIsForLife #IStandWithJKRowling

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@JonLost6 @DDenouncement How to know if this is true? Makes the latest Celebrity Traitors charity donations a little suss

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@Cursong74 @DDenouncement 1. I could never understand how Larkin was represented as some nice guy while being sleazy and disloyal. Really unpleasant
2. Illusionist disappeared but I really thought he had some integrity
3. He must be sweating
4. Not new SM success down under?

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@DaveMacfadyen @Midge1415 It raised a lot of ire at the time & has been replayed

What’s weird about Ross is that his entirely sexist rhetoric for tv interviews was absent in his radio programme

On R2, without the live audience and production, he seemed warm, funny and able to treat women as human beings

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@helkala @quineofthenorth It was on his radio show — which was ended by it but his radio show had never been like his tv interviews

I couldn’t watch the tv stuff because he - like Clive Anderson - only responded to women’s physical appearance/attractiveness & didn’t seem to know women were whole people!

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@quineofthenorth His TV interviews were always like that, in stark contrast to his radio show which was vastly better

His radio chat was not leery or empty (unlike TV) and he was understanding and funny

I have to admit I thought he was led by RB to the Sachs call

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@dave24144975 People who used to oppose animal cruelty are silent on this abuse

@TheGreenParty has ditched its policy of ppposinf this cruel slaughter practice to appease a portion of potential voters

Either animal cruelty matters or it doesn’t

National institutions should set an example

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@PaulChato @CheriDiNovo No. She’s actually stupid.

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@CheriDiNovo There is no reason any woman should be compelled to lie to or for a man who wants to be called a woman

The lie of gender identities undermines the rights and needs of women

No man ever stops needing male treatment

[Jill Foster @JournalistJill]

Once interviewed the mum of a girl who was sexually abused by her stepfather. He had Googled the difference sentence-wise between abusing a 12yo or 13yo girl. He then waited until she was 13. (He had helped raise her since she was a toddler).

You can't hate these men enough.

[Janet Murray @jan_murray]

A headteacher wrote to parents to tell them Mr X would now be known as Miss X. I've seen the letter.

The letter said 'Miss X' had already spoken to pupils about his pronouns. It also praised his courage and warned that unkindness towards him would not be tolerated.

And, basically, told families that talking openly about it would be disrespectful to the teacher involved.

Here are some of the safeguarding questions I’ve put to the school in my 'right of reply' request (heavily redacted to protect identities):

- Should a male teacher be telling young children he identifies as a woman and asking them to call him ‘Miss’?
- Were parents informed about his 'pronoun talk' beforehand? Could they ask for their child to sit out if they felt the subject was unsuitable?
- If pupils have been told a male teacher is a woman, what safeguarding implications did the school consider?
- Does the teacher use any female-only facilities? Do his duties involve supervising girls in toilets or changing rooms, including when they go swimming?
- Could a child be disciplined for saying the teacher is male or declining to call him ‘Miss’?

Then there’s the question of what happens when parents or staff raise concerns. Will the school take their gender-critical beliefs seriously or will they be told they’re discriminating against the teacher?

Given the person who highlighted this to me asked to remain anonymous, it doesn't look promising.

I’ll wait to hear what the school has to say. But parents shouldn’t need a journalist to find out what their children were told in class, what they were expected to say in response, or how the school would handle it if they disagreed.

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@hellopersephone

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@hellopersephone If there was ANYthing on Glinner it would have been published far and wide by "allies" who are committed to asserting that women can't exist without "including" men and target anyone who dares to tell the truth

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@Losrafascartel1 This was always awful. People coerced on public is the MO of comfortable, confident abusers

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@Mia_BunGal Head tilts don’t make men women

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@Mia_BunGal You were always you. You just have a piece of paper that contains a lie

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@RonniNicole1 Except women

Women must be subjugated to the demands of others

And lesbians & gay men who must not be able to express a sexual preference based on the two sexes or they’ll be dismissed as bigots

Or children. Children must affirm the lies of adults or be refused an education

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

@NottsRtN Clear illustration of why women must reclaim public spaces to be safe for women & girls - free of intimidation from men.

Shame on all those who oppose women’s freedoms

[The Maggie Oliver Foundation @TMOFCharity]

Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.

The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.

At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.

We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.

The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).

WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?

The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.

This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?

The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.

For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.

This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.

If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?

IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?

A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.

If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.

Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.

If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.

IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.

CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?

We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.

Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.

The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.

If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?

Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.

They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.

They build their expectations around those promises.

Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.

To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.

Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.

Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.

WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED

Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.

That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.

What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.

Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.

Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.

How many children might already be safer?

While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.

That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.

This case was never about clever legal arguments.

It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.

The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.

[Alex W Dunlop @twitone]

Fairly shocking that the @BBC isn’t broadcasting Remembrance day services in their own right

BBC2 news’ coverage maintains the scrolling “breaking news” about footballers and Russel Brand throughout, including the 2 minute silence

Cat arrives & fails to observe silence too!

[Josh Howie @joshxhowie]

Women march against male violence. They decide to not include men in the march against male violence, so men get violent.