GROUPTHINK

I have long been critical of appointments committees, advisory committees or any other term for supervisory bodies.  Recent headlines, at least in some recent cases, have reinforced my opinions.  First used in the 1940s the term “woke” has resurfaced in recent years as a concept that symbolises perceived awareness of social issues and movement against injustice, inequality, and prejudice.  Over the last decade the word has morphed into being aware of supposed inequitable judicial outcomes in the courts.  For those caught in its etymological net  it can be an assessment of how much their thinking processes are of a type approved by those who call themselves "progressives".  For those including this blogger who oppose almost all opinions in line with the "w" word straight talking has become more of a risk than ever it was. What was once good humoured and/or honest workplace banter is something that now might lead to an employment tribunal declaring as prejudicial to one party or another.  

Such was the case of social worker Rachel Meade who was suspended for her gender beliefs.  She was awarded £58,000 in damages in April from Westminster city council.  This was another case where a regulating authority, Social Work England, suspended her over her belief that a person cannot change his/her sex.  She didn`t get the headlines as some more active in this controversial subject have received but serves as an example of how far into "correct" thinking those who are appointed to supervise the supervisors have sunk into a morass which to them is as rigid as in any authoritarian jurisdiction.   There is more information here. 

Rioting students indoctrinated by media misinformation have been causing havoc at universities here and elsewhere justifying their actions that it is an offense to humanity that a nation under repeated attacks with more promised in the future cannot use the necessary means to defend its people.  Using tactics seen in 1930s Germany can be excused by some as young people searching for a cause but public libraries fulfilling their duties especially to young people to offer a vast range of material to inspire, enjoy and improve their imaginations and intellectual boundaries are a different matter. Assuming the books on offer are within the legal limits of what might be offered there surely should be a natural revulsion that they should censor what might be available according to age groups, authors and subjects.  Would that that were the case.  It seems that the watchword itself a woke term is "offensive".  Librarians appear to be acting on public requests to remove books from the shelves at a rate never before experienced. Banning books is not as direct a pointer to impending totalitarianism as burning books but it is a signal that many people are exhibiting signs that consciously or otherwise they have little confidence in being part of a democratic society. A Freedom of Information request, after analysis, showed that of 204 councils 163 responded. 17 did not have information of how many titles had been removed.  11 councils revealed that 16 books were removed after a single objection from a customer, parent or librarian on the grounds of being racist, divisive, inappropriate, violent or outdated.  A full account is available from Free Speech Union.     

Those librarians were presumably interviewed by council officials or their sub contractors.  If their censorious attitudes were clear at that time why were they employed.  If they were hidden on application and from interviewer it demonstrates the incompetence of those interviewing panels in failing their required duties and those who employed them.  

It`s a couple of decades since I was part of the national workforce but I do remember when I first was being paid for my presumed expertise remarking more than once to an older male colleague in the lightest possible manner with a smile on my face, "Back in your day".  Woe betide a worker now committing that abominable spoken aggression.  An employment tribunal judge a few months ago ruled that such a statement could be unlawful.  Workplace fear seems to be commonplace for employers and employees.  Fear is the basis of all authoritarian regimes. It destroys societies but fear doesn`t begin at the point of a gun; it ends at the point of a gun.   

From my own experiences I know that many magistrates use their position to secure part time appointments to just the kind of supervisory bodies I have been fulminating against over the last few weeks. Some might be on that next step up the "great and the good" ladder insofar as they are the supervising and/or appointing authority for the supervisors.  It matters little.  Magistrates used to be individuals with minds of their own: now they are considered as unpaid employees of His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service.  They might still take the judicial oath but another requirement is now required to be worthy of their place on the bench; that is groupthink.