A certain amusement here

Ruth Hunt hasn’t had an easy ride. The outgoing chief executive of Stonewall has been accused of driving away donors. She has been charged with running “a militant trans agenda” by one former supporter and “[losing] what the big principle was” by another. Earlier this year the Times and Daily Mail claimed her resignation as a victory in the face of “growing protest by leading gay and lesbian supporters”.

For the head of a charity campaigning for lesbian, gay, bi and – under Hunt – trans rights, it might have been crushing. But Hunt, 39, is unflappable and unapologetic.

“The truth is, the support for our position significantly outweighs the opposition,” she says. And for proof, she points out that in her five years in the job, Stonewall has more than doubled in size, expanding from 75 to 160 staff, while its income has grown from £5.4m to £8.7m.

The organisation campaigning for trans rights has more employees than actually have the chop in any one year.

Well, OK, not really. But it’s a substantial proportion, I’ve not got the latest numbers:

The number of gender reassignment surgeries carried yearly on the NHS has tripled
since 2000, figures show. In 2000, 54 surgeries were carried out, compared with 143
in 2009, the Daily Telegraph reports.

We are approaching bureaucratic perfection, are we not? Where there are more shuffling paper than there are customers?

Rather more seriously, note that definition of success within a bureaucracy. Increased head count, greater budget. No reference whatsoever to greater output….

26 comments on “A certain amusement here

  1. Yeah, but it’s also a business on the same model as monasteries through the ages.

  2. “It’s about treating people as they want to be treated, and when it causes no disadvantage to me whatsoever, who am I to challenge it?”

    Bless! She thinks there’s no disadvantage to the taxpayer or society in general in accepting a bloke in a frock is as ‘woman’ as I am…

  3. The best bit is loony activists complaining because even loonier activists took over hollowed out their organisation and used it to push their agenda.

  4. “It’s about treating people as they want to be treated, and when it causes no disadvantage to me whatsoever, who am I to challenge it?”

    This is terrific lie, framing it in some sort of JS Mill principle. It is total bollocks.

  5. What would be a greater output?

    More letters added on to LGBTQ? More trans operations?

  6. If I am obliged to accept what is in conflict with my understanding and appreciation of the general order of things, then there is of necessity a disadvantage to me.

  7. “Bureaucratic perfection” would be a government department dedicated entirely to administering the pensions and perquisites of former members of the department.

  8. Only monastery I’ve had dealings with, Mr Lud, are Trappists. An example I can heartily recommend to the entirety of the LGBTXYZ movement

  9. I’m thinking of the great era of the monasteries Mr in Spain, when they accumulated vast wealth by purporting to disdain it. But yes, I see the benefit of a period of silence from these people.

  10. Ok, but let’s focus on the important stuff:

    What the hell is she wearing?

    Why do so many lezzers go for the Agatha-Trunchbull-meets-Elvis-Costello look? That other one from Great British Bake Off does it too.

  11. Isn’t Stonewall pretty much redundant at this point?

    Campaigned for more LGBT rights, got them. Like, sure, there’s still thugs who beat up gays, or the odd business that will not bake a cake, but institutionally, everyone is pro-gay now, aren’t they? There’s no law left to change, is there?

    There’s a hell of a lot of charities that could just pack up. How many wounded veterans is the Royal British Legion looking after now? What do Barnardo’s do, now they don’t run homes? Or the NSPCC now there’s social services? Most of the charities involved in Africa now seem a bit pointless as gov is spending a fortune and development is sorting them out

  12. institutionally, everyone is pro-gay now, aren’t they?

    Always brings a wry smile when I’m in a hospital and see the mandatory pro-sodomy posters right next to the ones warning you about the dangers of smoking.

  13. BoM4: Most of the charities involved in Africa now seem a bit pointless as gov is spending a fortune and development is sorting them out

    If we broaden the question to including all developing countries, then obviously the charities do their bit to boost the incomes of Haitian sex-workers having first recruited them into that line of work.

    They also do their bit to draw attention to poverty in the UK, of course.

  14. “The organisation campaigning for trans rights has more employees than actually have the chop in any one year.”

    Tut! You need to check your numbers more carefully! Why are you assuming that everone does it on the NHS? Why are you ignoring private medicine?

    “We are approaching bureaucratic perfection, are we not? Where there are more shuffling paper than there are customers?”

    They have a lot more customers than just the post-SRS trans! Stonewall serves the entire rainbow. At the least, you have to add the number of LGB to the T!

    “Rather more seriously, note that definition of success within a bureaucracy. Increased head count, greater budget.”

    Ach! The accusation made was that it was “driving away donors”! As a response to such an accusation, donations and the staff they fund seems to me a perfectly relevant measure.

    “This is terrific lie, framing it in some sort of JS Mill principle. It is total bollocks.”

    You think JS Mill’s principle is ‘total bollocks’? Why’s that?

    “If I am obliged to accept what is in conflict with my understanding and appreciation of the general order of things, then there is of necessity a disadvantage to me.”

    Translation: As a snowflake, you need a safe space to defend yourself from distressing truths that might ‘trigger’ you.

    Does this principle of yours apply to anyone who believes crazy stuff that the rest of society is telling them is wrong? Ufologists? Socialists? Scientologists? Children who believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy?

  15. Does this principle of yours apply to anyone who believes crazy stuff that the rest of society is telling them is wrong?

    It applies to people who insist that the law is changed to make it illegal to oppose their crazy stuff.

    Blasphemy laws count, for example, as well as a good 90% of the “Islamophobia” drivel.

  16. NiV – Why are you assuming that everone does it on the NHS? Why are you ignoring private medicine?

    Indeed, won’t somebody think of the autogyro fetishists who get their nuts chopped off in cockroach-infested Thai hospitals?

  17. What we have here is an organisation seeking further existence, for which it needs a new cause. There’s nothing more to do for homosexuals, so they need a new mission.
    A very common situation. Take London’s air pollution for example. In the 1950s it was awful. Bodies were set up to sort it out. Anyone who remembers the original problem thinks it’s solved. But those bodies keep on pushing for improvements that have imperceptible effects on the populace.

  18. You think JS Mill’s principle is ‘total bollocks’? Why’s that?

    A fine example of NiV cuntery.

  19. “You think JS Mill’s principle is ‘total bollocks’? Why’s that?”

    Worth answering that for him.
    Because the men-in-frocks movement have driven a coach & horses through JS Mill’s principal. Because the MiF’s are demanding wider society subscribe to bollocks (Or perhaps lack of bollocks. Without lifting the frock, it’s difficult to be sure) They’re imposing their mental illness on the rest of us.

  20. By the way, I actually know more than a few trannies. Or travestis as they style themselves. And they’re a great deal more convincing than some of the freak shows infest discourse in the UK & US. But they’re nor like the english version of that word. Never heard one of them claim to be a woman. They are what they are. Possibly because S. Americans have retained a firmer grasp on reality.

  21. You think JS Mill’s principle is ‘total bollocks’? Why’s that?

    Lol. Are you a lawyer?

  22. Possibly because S. Americans have retained a firmer grasp on reality.

    That, and the fact the trans movement in the UK is a political movement. This is why it attracts dishonest authoritarian fanatics like NiV.

  23. “expanding from 75 to 160 staff, while its income has grown from £5.4m to £8.7m.”
    So the extra staff bring in an average of £35,000 per year each. Mostly in London, I expect. How much does it cost to employ them?

  24. Well that’s 85 more not importuning people in public lavatories during working hours.

    (It’s posts like this that justify the existence of the organisation so I’m really do my bit to support them)

  25. [In last five years] Stonewall has more than doubled in size, expanding from 75 to 160 staff, while its income has grown from £5.4m to £8.7m

    Anyone know if income growth is all Gov’t/EU funding?

    .
    @Bloke on M4 May 20, 2019 at 10:53 am

    +1 iirc Tatchell said Stonewall’s job done, it should close

    Banardos et al too – yep

  26. Lesbian, Gay, and Bi people are basically socially accepted nowadays – Stonewall has won.

    So, either Stonewall pivots to a different oppressed group or Stonewall shuts down – there’s nothing much more to be done with LGB activism anymore.

    Its the sad state of the world – the longer you’re an activist, the less its about activism and the more it is about keeping that paycheck coming in.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.