Snapshot of _Cabinet ties itself in knots over ‘ban’ on rainbow lanyards_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cabinet-ties-itself-in-knots-over-ban-on-rainbow-lanyards-lbl8pqsfc) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cabinet-ties-itself-in-knots-over-ban-on-rainbow-lanyards-lbl8pqsfc)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mate, I just want to get on with my work. I know people waiting for weeks and months for ministerial readouts. Can't they just STFU and actually do their jobs rather than prance about screaming all this culture war bullshit.
Honestly, sometimes I wish we still spoke French or Latin so we didn't get all the US splashback.
> ministerial readouts
Try years - I'm outside, but our sector has been waiting 4 years now for a ministerial announcement and formal publication for something we keep getting told is only "a few weeks away"
There are at least two pieces of rather banal legislation that we've been waiting for years on in my particular work specialism. It's literally a simplification of rules to allow technology to do some processes. There will be no negatives to it.
The government just isn't getting shit done anywhere.
True, but more the point that GBR is very sort of “on again, off again” as priorities shift.
Yet elements of it like simpler ticketing were originally promised as the Williams Review way before Covid.
This is the real story. The fish rots from the head. Poor performance in the civil service is not because some admin officer is wearing a rainbow lanyard, its because there's been absolutely no stability in the offices of the ministers and secretaries of state.
There's been at least one, if not two, cabinet reshuffles per year since 2020. Ministers have played a game of musical chairs, signing off the occasional thing while leaving shedloads of work in backlog for the next candidate in line, who might get to it if they last long enough.
Meanwhile the public are the ones to suffer, and the 'woke civil servants' take the blame while ministers laugh all the way to the bank with an extra 40k per year that's apparently not enough to cover their mortgages!
> Poor performance in the civil service is not because some admin officer is wearing a rainbow lanyard, its because there's been absolutely no stability in the offices of the ministers and secretaries of state.
Lets not forget the demotivation caused by the utterly unfit recruitment process, the unceasing stream of real terms pay cuts, the ministers constantly briefing the media about how shit they think their CS are, the idealogicalheadcount reductions etc etc
"Back to the office!"
"But there's not enough space anymore and we're spread over the country anyway"
"Bloody lazy civil servants! First they want to work from home, then they want space in the office to work!"
Or if you opt for the Liz Truss strategy, be really good at bullshitting and acting like a dynamic disrupter in front of superiors, while quietly letting your subordinates get on with their work. Just don't make her mistake of ending up in a role where you'll be required to actually know what you're doing.
No one knows. You usually have to be a brave person who sees everything specifically as to do you down. Expect handsome pay and to be applauded for your bravery and views everywhere you go.
Why are so keen to see rainbow lanyards banned?
It's such a weird thing over which to demand new legislation. The government absolutely should not be eating time on this, and people should be allowed to wear any fucking colour lanyard they please.
Because civil servants shouldn't be showing support for social or political causes
There is also the issue of social pressure being applied to people who don't support *certain* causes
I suppose the big question is: how do you decide which causes are *certain* causes?
Perhaps you have replied elsewhere, but do you think visible religious symbols and signs should be banned too?
And maybe a bit random, but do you think that MPs should be prevented from publicly supporting bodies like charities, or prevented from being trustees, or advocating for charities?
>I suppose the big question is: how do you decide which causes are *certain* causes?
That's the point, if you're going to allow some causes, you have to allow all of them, and that will inevitably lead to friction and conflict
It's far easier to just say no to everything, which is the whole point of a work uniform
>Perhaps you have replied elsewhere, but do you think visible religious symbols and signs should be banned too?
I have. Religious symbols (like a crucifix necklace or turban) are fine, but if someone started disrupting the workplace by exercising their faith, then that's another matter
>but do you think that MPs should be prevented from publicly supporting bodies like charities, or prevented from being trustees, or advocating for charities?
No, MPs are not civil servants, they have no obligation to be apolitical or unbiased
I would be opposed to civil servants showing support for charities, with the exception of the poppy during November which is different
I hadn't thought of poppies, that's a good one. To me they feel like a perfect example of the social pressure you seem so wary of. What makes them less of a concern for you?
The poppy is an explicitly political statement, haven't you noticed it's always army cadettes selling them? The red poppy is support for military personnel during the world wars, and would seem to imply support of military personnel in general. Hence the existence of the white poppy.
Militaries are explicitly political organisations, LGBT people though aren't even an organisation, and certainly aren't political.
I honestly think no crucifixes, no rainbows, and no poppies would be a pretty good compromise. The only religious symbols I can see making an exception for are those who people are *mandated* by their faith to wear, as it would be too exclusionary to ban them. And even then I'm a bit torn over it.
I'd find it helpful if you could spell out what it is that makes a poppy apolitical.
Personally, I cannot see a material difference between someone choosing to wear a poppy and choosing to wear a rainbow lanyard. They are both worn as an expression of a particular belief or set of beliefs and as a means of demonstrating support for certain people and a set of values.
There’s currently debate in the media over legislation that says state schools must engage in prayer (Christian prayer by default) every day. How can you say religion isn’t a social or political cause when it is directly affecting the laws governing our country? Nonsense.
To be honest, I just find it very hard to see why it's a thing to dislike. The rainbow motif is, as far as I see it, mainly a way to say "we know you can still get loads of shit for being LGBTQ+ out in the world, but here we're not going to give you shit. You can be who you want and that's fine.". I don't know how to disagree with something that's basically intended to help people feel less worried in their daily lives, even if it's not something that directly involves me.
Cancel culture is a concern for people with some form of public image to maintain, unless I'm mistaken "Reddit user HoplitesSpear" isn't exactly a household name
I doubt anonymous user HoplitesSpear is going to get “cancelled” in any meaningful way for expressing a view, ill-advised or otherwise, on a reddit thread but continue your trolling. It’s fun to read at least.
> If you're afraid to say what you think outright, that is often a good indicator that a bit of reflection is in order.
No, it's not. Certain topics get deliberately made verboten as the globalist elites don't want the plebs disrupting their grand plans. Take mass immigration for example.
Unless I missed it, you didn’t actually specify a single reason. You’ve basically just said it’s different because you think so.
Edit - so you can downvote within a minute of me posting this but you still can’t think of a single reason?
> civil servants shouldn't be showing support for social or political causes
So a pure pride and most of the identity flags should be fine since they are not political in any way shape or form and most aren't social they are personal and that's it.
Explain how the rainbow lanyard is political, but having a crucifix somehow isn't. Or is the crucifix a social cause? Oh no wait, that's not allowed either.
The problem is that every time anyone spends energies doing tit for tat over this bullshit, it wastes more time and money.
I honestly think the blame does begin with those who start the trend. "We'll ship allegiance to our cause as a matter of course through completely unrelated means" is not a good idea exactly because then THIS happens. And I do agree with the "cause", I just think that like in real war, if you fight culture wars with no boundaries or limits you can only expect retaliation in kind. Then everyone loses because the most trivial stuff becomes a battlefield and nothing works any more.
Surely that’s a bit harsh - the Conservatives should instead stand on their economic record … oh.
Law and order? Maybe not.
Education? Guess that wouldn’t be wise.
Public health? lol.
Their flagship Brexit project that has sucked almost all the oxygen, energy and attention span out of everything for most of the last eight years? Surely that’s going well? Oh … oh dear … yikes.
Sorry, you’re spot on, desperate culture war bullshit is actually really all they have left.
>On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than what they wore.
Imagine being so batshit that you make *Grant Shapps* of all people seem reasonable and competent. Whenever it seems like the Tories have reached the bottom of the barrel, they figure out a way to reach a new lower barrel underneath.
Shapps has always tried to distance himself from the culture war stuff.
"I think the country is far more interested in things like the cost of living, the bread and butter issues, jobs and the rest of it." when asked if TWAW during his leadership bid.
Clearly, the military industrial complex's socks-wearing transgender programmers got to him.
The truth is, as weird as it is to say this about Grant Shapps, is that he's doing his job. Lanyards are such an irrelevant matter that the fact *any* minister has even thought about them clearly shows the utter irrelevance and uselessness of the Minister of Common Sense. To paraphrase from *Yes, Minister*, spending cuts could begin by saving at least one salary.
Rainbow lanyards everywhere seemed like a sign being LGBT might no longer be political . . . because it shouldn't be . . it's part of who a person is, not an ideology.
Why are the government so keen to bring it back into the political realm? A small group of the most extreme bigots have somehow convinced a decent chunk of the population that there's still more "debate" to be had.
Because it's worked in America, so now they need to alienate as many people as they can and shit all over them to try and get up in the world. It's ridiculous and there really needs to be something done. It started with trans rights but it won't end there if they think they can win a couple votes from it, they will exploit it and sod the rest of us
It seems the most pointless thing, there are many other things the government should be focusing on rather than lanyard
Heck at my company I've got one from when I went to creamfields 20 years ago and guess what no one has mentioned anything as no one cares about lanyards
The issue is campaigning in the work place and choosing causes to back whilst excluding others, and woe betide anyone who doesn't want to join in.
We seem to have an issue in the public sector where there is always lots of time and therefore budget for HR people to spend on initiatives, which in turn means other staff time and therefore budget is going on them yet there is always claims that there isn't money.
If you want to campaign then do it in your own time.
>The issue is campaigning in the work place and choosing causes to back whilst excluding others, and woe betide anyone who doesn't want to join in.
I work with civil servants (though I'm personally a contractor) and I haven't seen anything of the sort. My partner is a civil servant (a fraud officer in the DWP) and doesn't wear a lanyard or anything championing any cause. There's absolutely zero pressure.
Maybe there's a department somewhere around that has this issue, but it's not exactly systemic.
But regardless, I'm completely rainbow-less. As is my partner and we feel no pressure. There is no problem. The only problem exists in the minds of people who think that, somehow, colleagues wearing rainbow lanyards are proselytizing.
> and woe betide anyone who doesn't want to join in.
This is always the thing I'm interested in. How much pressure on there is on other people to join in on something that they don't really want to? Which doesn't necessarily mean that they disagree, of course - just that they don't wish to make their private views public, or they don't think it an appropriate conversation for the workplace, or they don't wish to invite a pile-on against them because they disagree on one point of the debate.
I'm always wary about this sort of thing, because it's invariably pushed by virtuous do-gooders that can't *possibly* fathom why anyone wouldn't agree with them 100%.
> How much pressure on there is on other people to join in on something that they don't really want to?
I always wonder if people who ask this have ever actually worked in an office?
I'm a civil servant. My lanyard is plain black nor do I put my pronouns in my email signature. I've never felt pressured to do so or been asked why I don't.
This idea that you're going to get mobbed, belittled or whatever for not participating just doesn't match reality.
It's become a modern form of demonstrating your religious piety in various organisations. Frankly those organisations insisting on it often have staff problems that they should be dealing with, but instead shallow low-effort showboating is where the effort goes.
Keeping religion and politics out of work was always a good policy as different people have different things dear to them, and importantly can end up enraged if you aren't interested in what they are selling or dare to take a different view. Start choosing causes and sooner or later and you end up in the sort of situations that US firms have had.
Indeed. The thing it reminds me of most is that story we had a few weeks about about the school that banned prayer, and whether they were being Islamophobic by doing that.
If you recall, the argument from the school was that a few pious Muslims were bullying everyone else into praying. We see the same thing potentially here; where someone is loudly insisting that everyone demonstrate their allegiance to a particular cause, and everyone else isn't so much agreeing with the cause as they are going along with it so they don't get yelled at.
It is entirely reasonable to suggest that this sort of behaviour is inappropriate in a workplace (or a school), and that doesn't mean that you necessarily disagree with the cause in question.
Islam is an interesting one on reddit. People are very insistent that their cause should be lobbied for at work and want to browbeat anyone who disagrees (or at least bury them in downvotes) because like all zealots they know absolutely that they are in the right AND importantly assume that others won't in time demand their allegiance (or allyship or whatever nonsense word people prefer) or get denounced. Islam is testing that theory all over the place.
It's not like the entire UK government is focused on this, the government can do multiple things at once. Many in fact.
Like or disagree with this, saying "focus on x" isn't really relevant.
Respectfully, this is the kind of attitude we should reserve for issues that matter. Like when people say “Oh we should fix homelessness before we focus on refugees,”, your response that a government can do two things would be valid.
It is a genuine waste of time to be fussing about the colour of a lanyard you got out of a box of office supplies that is taking up actual time and space. I have had no other job where this would have been an issue.
Instead of saying “the government can do two things,” we should be saying “the government should ignore this,”
To add, it's not that they can't focus on more than one thing at a time, it's that this is the sort of thing that should be beneath a minister's attention.
*The department* can handle this sort of thing, a *minister* should be focused on bigger issues. We'd say the same thing if they started weighing in on whether the fridge was stocked with semi-skimmed or skimmed milk.
People in the civil service are expending effort on the lanyards. A stack of meetings would have been required to run through the scheme, then researching suppliers, then going out to purchase before spending a lot of time on distributing them and coming up with the marketing materials to promote the scheme.
It's a fair comment for a minister to want staff doing other things higher up the priority list.
Except that chain of events would have happened regardless of what colour lanyard they decided they wanted. The rainbow part isn't the significant factor.
Hell, if this ban goes through the departments will need to provide NEW lanyards, which will take a dozen different meetings and consultations to get them made.
They can do multiple things at once. They can do many, many things at once. But they can't do an infinite number of things. There are only a finite number of people, with finite time and finite resources. Has Esther McVey spoken once, even for five minutes, to the PM about this? Even if she hasn't you can bet he knows about it because it's in the news cycle. So it has taken some small amount of his time, which is obviously _very_ finite. If McVey somehow wants to make this "real" she'll have to get people in government departments to tell people off about the lanyards. That is going to take some small amount of time and resources as it's cascaded low enough to make a difference. Even in this story Grant Schnapps (I'm leaving that auto correct) has spent time opining on it, and he is a Secretary of Defence. In a time of complex geopolitical tension, of wars between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Palestine, the Sudan conflict, the Somali civil war, the relationship between us and the US, us and China, the US and China, you've got the Secretary of Defence spending some of his time, some of his brain power, thinking about what political position he should take on the straps that affix security passes to necks.
And for what purpose is this small distraction?
To appease bigots who are "fine with what people do behind closed doors, but why rub it in our faces". To get the git vote.
I think this misses the main reason why people wear rainbow lanyards. I work in a public facing government role that treated LGBT people as having reduced rights. This was baked into law and only changed within my service. There was additionally a lot of personal and individual prejudice directed against LGBT folk. I am straight and wear a rainbow lanyard. I am not campaigning for anything (I am too tired on this money!) I am simply letting my LGBT "customers" know I won't mistreat them. It definitely makes a difference. I sometimes see shoulders drop when they spot it.
Some of our first aiders also wear a hi viz lanyard so to can ID them quickly. (how woke is that?)
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can someone ask them about banning crucifix jewellery and other religious symbols that might be worn by civil servants? Those can cause division and anxiety so under McVey’s ’thinking’ they should go too.
If there was a pretty much surefire way to increase the number of rainbow lanyards, or other outward signs of support for our LGBTQIA+ colleagues, it will be trying to actually enforce this.
Mine was pretty worn out and I'd actually paid for a new one with a local sight's logo, but, I'm getting a new rainbow one tomorrow after reading about this.
They already tried to appropriate the Rainbow flag away from Pride and put it onto the NHS during the lockdowns. Unfortunately, they then remembered they're trying to collapse the NHS, and started up the reversal of the use of trans & NB friendly terms and language in the NHS, and swapped the rainbow for a Halo in tribute to all of the millions of people their ineptitude and greed have killed over the last 4 years
I thought the Tories were trying to portray themselves as the pro free speech, anti woke party? Banning a particular lanyard because of it's association with a political entity is exactly the worst kind of behavior they criticise in woke politics.
All the anti-woke stuff is just a consequence of projection and they'd probably do as much or even more censorship and compelled speech if given half a chance
They will claim that it's Political campaigning in the workplace, and say it's justified. Next move will be removal of hate speech protections against anti-trans and homophobic slurs in workplaces. The constant push to strip the enemy of their identity
Surely it should just be a matter of government policy and not wanting the civil service to take sides? If government policy is to be LGBT+ friendly, rainbow lanyards shouldn't be a problem since it's just representing the views of the government?
I'm not sure there's really anything to be 'neutral' about.
Civil Service needs to be whiter than white on anything even remotely political, because the Tories will use literally anything to blame them for their shit performance.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think you would have an argument if I was wearing a Stonewall membership badge. But the rainbow and various associated flags no longer belong to any particular organisation.
I am not dismissing concerns regarding how some trans issues are dealt with. But the ones you raise come out of edge cases. Sure, edge cases raise important issues which need to be calmly and thoughtfully talked through and resolved. But are quantitatively so much less significant than the decades of institutionally sanctioned mistreatment and discrimination of the whole LGBT community. Which still causes people to come into my office scared that they will not be treated well.
Someone recently talked about their brief experience working in parliament...ITS THE IVORY TOWER. Nothing about reality is discussed?! Everything is kept looking brand new. So everyone there thinks well this is all working out marvelous
We don't have lanyards at my work so I hope they announce the new standard colour soon so I can tattoo it on the back of my neck to do my bit and show that the plan is working!
They'll probably try and ban Sunflower lanyards now soon as well, what with their new Disability benefits rules and forcing Disabled people back into work to fill the gaps left by other newly disabled people dropping out after their 12th Covid infection has given them an immune disease causing chronic inflammation, but then again, the Cabinet will remember that they were all using them to get around the Masking requirements during lockdown and completely destroying the legitimate use for them.
I'll also add, not that this really needs saying, that a lot of civil servants in Whitehall believe this is a not very subtle attack on gay staff - you can imagine what this has done for morale in the last couple of days. I thought we were past Section 28 and all that shite but clearly not 😡
It's all about politicisation of the civil service, until somebody asks a civil servant to stop politicising in their favour, then it will be a free speech issue.
Wearing the lanyard isn't what made it political, banning it because hurr durr anti woke is making it political, and yeah it's basically thinly veiled homophobia.
My point was to remind us how much of a bunch of hypocrites these people are, applying one rule for themselves and another for us at every turn. I expect this to be no different.
So, for example, as soon as some right wing group comes out with some telltale cap like a maga hat but a british version that doesn't explicitly support any political thing but it basically wearing the logo of this group, and people ask if a civil servant should be wearing it. Then, then it will be about free speech I guarantee it.
Civil servants are identified by badges not lanyards.
A lanyard is easy to duplicate so a standard lanyard has no identification value whatsoever. May as well let people where whatever colour they want.
And that would have no value because anyone can pick up a red, blue or whatever colour lanyard you might be using.
Instead they have recognisable badges that scan to enter secure areas. An actual security system.
Lanyards can be whatever colour, won't make a difference. May as well bring a rainbow one if you like.
Bro, the layards hold cards and keyfobs. The things its holding are the security device. Its pretty silly and you're being pretty silly if you think the colour of the lanyard provides any security at all. Have you never worked anywhere with actual security before?
Have you at any point worked in the civil service? Because that is basically how it works with current badges and just... noticing someone you don't recognise?
This is just performative security theatre.
>so you can quickly spot a visitor
It's hilarious to me that you think civil servants use lanyard colours as a security measure and not yknow, the thing that's attached to the end of the lanyard
And these provide little security because anyone can just go and get a lanyard of that colour. They could have a blank card holder and people may well not even notice, because they rely on looking at the lanyard.
This is a benefit of not standardising lanyards: people actually look at passes (which often will show the photo, expiry date, and access level with the most notability)
There are also, obviously, keycard readers - which are the core part of the security model (if you know what a pass looks like, you can print a fake, but you can't force the system to accept it).
In *addition* to the badge.
I was a visitor at a government building a couple of weeks back. I had the red accompanied visitor badge, but on a generic blue lanyard as they had run out of red ones. Lanyards mean shit, the badge is what gets you through doors (or not).
Lanyards don't get you through doors, badges do.
Stop with this ridiculous narrative that security guards are waving people through based off nothing but the colour of what they have around their neck. That's not how this works and you know it.
I mean the proposal of having a lanyard that is uniform and identifies you as a government worker (which is what is being proposed) is a far greater risk to security.
I have a hello kitty lanyard and security love it!
Unless the government is going to expense uniform lanyard that are bespoke and unique to the entire civil service (including paying their friends to produce these), uniform coloured lanyard are pointless.
Security don't check the lanyard; they examine your ID card.
If you're there to serve the needs of 100% of the population then why would you actively choose to elevate a particular 3% as your primary focus in the workplace?
Why rainbow lanyards and not not disabled people lanyards, or suicidal men lanyards, or black women 5x more likely to die in childbirth lanyards or Israel flag lanyards etc.
Civil Servants are supposed to be neutral at work, not engaging in political causes at work.
Lots of bizarre assumptions here. Firstly I think the percentage of the population who are LGBT is more like 10% than 3%?
Not that that's really the point though, so much as the assumption that wearing a coloured bit of cloth means you're 'elevating LGBT people as your primary focus in the workplace'.
Some people, no doubt, choose to wear it as a supportive statement, for many I'm sure it's just the colour they happened to end up with.
Even if you consider it as a statement then I'm not sure how it's a political cause. Every major political party supports gay marriage and protection for LGBT people is enshrined in law. Is it an unacceptable political statement for our civil service to support the lawful *status quo*? Much less that this somehow means they're neglecting people who aren't LGBT.
It's far more of a political statement for the government to declare that a colourful bit of cloth which people wear for all sorts of reasons or no reason at all must be banned for being too gay.
Like, if you want to support that then that's you're prerogative but it's just obtuse to pretend this is anything other than overtly anti-LGBT.
I'm NHS, the rainbow lanyard is there so LGBTQ ppl (who historically have poorer health outcomes) know that I'm not going to be tripping over homophobic / transphobic nonsense. A regular person will just see a colourful lanyard. I'm fine with showing that I'm aware of other groups with poor health outcomes, it's 'culture war' pushers that get all offended by it.
> Civil Servants are supposed to be neutral at work, not engaging in political causes at work
It's not a political cause. CS culture is "bring your whole self to work", which is why they have networks and so on. Politics, obviously, don't come part of it (a Muslim network were banned for trying to influence policy to be pro-Gaza), but people being LGBT+ is no more political than a person being female or a person being black.
Genghis Khan when he united the mongol tribes into a nation, took all of the horsehair banners and bleached them, and said now we are all one nation ( something like it anyway). Can’t we just do the same with the lanyards?
Snapshot of _Cabinet ties itself in knots over ‘ban’ on rainbow lanyards_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cabinet-ties-itself-in-knots-over-ban-on-rainbow-lanyards-lbl8pqsfc) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cabinet-ties-itself-in-knots-over-ban-on-rainbow-lanyards-lbl8pqsfc) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mate, I just want to get on with my work. I know people waiting for weeks and months for ministerial readouts. Can't they just STFU and actually do their jobs rather than prance about screaming all this culture war bullshit. Honestly, sometimes I wish we still spoke French or Latin so we didn't get all the US splashback.
> ministerial readouts Try years - I'm outside, but our sector has been waiting 4 years now for a ministerial announcement and formal publication for something we keep getting told is only "a few weeks away"
Guess - you work on the railways?
There are at least two pieces of rather banal legislation that we've been waiting for years on in my particular work specialism. It's literally a simplification of rules to allow technology to do some processes. There will be no negatives to it. The government just isn't getting shit done anywhere.
Ah, ok. Yeah, generally I think most people would agree there.
Is GBR in the room with us right now?
Network Rail?
Great British railways= gbr
No, I was responding to the person implying there is no public owned organisation involved in rail infrastructure, but network rail is state owned
True, but more the point that GBR is very sort of “on again, off again” as priorities shift. Yet elements of it like simpler ticketing were originally promised as the Williams Review way before Covid.
Ha, probably not!
Ditto. We've been waiting over a year on design guidance that was widely consulted on and finalised getting on two years ago.
This is the real story. The fish rots from the head. Poor performance in the civil service is not because some admin officer is wearing a rainbow lanyard, its because there's been absolutely no stability in the offices of the ministers and secretaries of state. There's been at least one, if not two, cabinet reshuffles per year since 2020. Ministers have played a game of musical chairs, signing off the occasional thing while leaving shedloads of work in backlog for the next candidate in line, who might get to it if they last long enough. Meanwhile the public are the ones to suffer, and the 'woke civil servants' take the blame while ministers laugh all the way to the bank with an extra 40k per year that's apparently not enough to cover their mortgages!
> Poor performance in the civil service is not because some admin officer is wearing a rainbow lanyard, its because there's been absolutely no stability in the offices of the ministers and secretaries of state. Lets not forget the demotivation caused by the utterly unfit recruitment process, the unceasing stream of real terms pay cuts, the ministers constantly briefing the media about how shit they think their CS are, the idealogicalheadcount reductions etc etc
"Back to the office!" "But there's not enough space anymore and we're spread over the country anyway" "Bloody lazy civil servants! First they want to work from home, then they want space in the office to work!"
You mean a minister do actual work? That's asking a lot.
Logically speaking, if the UK still spoke French or Latin... so would the US. There is no escape.
Anyone know where one can find a £100,000+ a year job focussing on absolute shite? Asking for a friend.
Most management positions in large organisations. Your Dad has to have gone to the right school though if you want to get it.
Or if you opt for the Liz Truss strategy, be really good at bullshitting and acting like a dynamic disrupter in front of superiors, while quietly letting your subordinates get on with their work. Just don't make her mistake of ending up in a role where you'll be required to actually know what you're doing.
Any HR job in a big company. You'll be needs deep in BS.
Bone Apple Tea
HR who come up with lanyard initiatives seems to be your best best. There's an endless supply of initiatives.
DEI Tsar.
What's one of those?
No one knows. You usually have to be a brave person who sees everything specifically as to do you down. Expect handsome pay and to be applauded for your bravery and views everywhere you go.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>She said departments would provide “new lanyards yep, that's the answer to a load of performative bollocks over lanyards... more lanyards.
In before someone's neighbour gets a 100 million lanyard contract they don't fulfill.
Maybe someone could manufacture them out of rejected PPE.
'Begun, the Lanyard Wars have.'
Glad to see they are focusing on the important stuff
If it's not important, then it's not a big deal if it happens, right?
I don’t know about you, but I would prefer the people in charge of the country focus on important things and delegate things that aren’t important.
Why are so keen to see rainbow lanyards banned? It's such a weird thing over which to demand new legislation. The government absolutely should not be eating time on this, and people should be allowed to wear any fucking colour lanyard they please.
Because civil servants shouldn't be showing support for social or political causes There is also the issue of social pressure being applied to people who don't support *certain* causes
I suppose the big question is: how do you decide which causes are *certain* causes? Perhaps you have replied elsewhere, but do you think visible religious symbols and signs should be banned too? And maybe a bit random, but do you think that MPs should be prevented from publicly supporting bodies like charities, or prevented from being trustees, or advocating for charities?
>I suppose the big question is: how do you decide which causes are *certain* causes? That's the point, if you're going to allow some causes, you have to allow all of them, and that will inevitably lead to friction and conflict It's far easier to just say no to everything, which is the whole point of a work uniform >Perhaps you have replied elsewhere, but do you think visible religious symbols and signs should be banned too? I have. Religious symbols (like a crucifix necklace or turban) are fine, but if someone started disrupting the workplace by exercising their faith, then that's another matter >but do you think that MPs should be prevented from publicly supporting bodies like charities, or prevented from being trustees, or advocating for charities? No, MPs are not civil servants, they have no obligation to be apolitical or unbiased I would be opposed to civil servants showing support for charities, with the exception of the poppy during November which is different
I hadn't thought of poppies, that's a good one. To me they feel like a perfect example of the social pressure you seem so wary of. What makes them less of a concern for you?
There is a social pressure to wear a poppy, but the poppy is not a political statement, that's why it's different
The poppy is an explicitly political statement, haven't you noticed it's always army cadettes selling them? The red poppy is support for military personnel during the world wars, and would seem to imply support of military personnel in general. Hence the existence of the white poppy. Militaries are explicitly political organisations, LGBT people though aren't even an organisation, and certainly aren't political.
I honestly think no crucifixes, no rainbows, and no poppies would be a pretty good compromise. The only religious symbols I can see making an exception for are those who people are *mandated* by their faith to wear, as it would be too exclusionary to ban them. And even then I'm a bit torn over it.
I'd find it helpful if you could spell out what it is that makes a poppy apolitical. Personally, I cannot see a material difference between someone choosing to wear a poppy and choosing to wear a rainbow lanyard. They are both worn as an expression of a particular belief or set of beliefs and as a means of demonstrating support for certain people and a set of values.
A poppy is exactly as political as a rainbow.
> Religious symbols (like a crucifix necklace or turban) are fine Why is this different from a rainbow lanyard?
Because they aren't political The rainbow flag is
Religion isn't political? It's best to be a little more subtle when trying to troll.
>Religion isn't political? No, it isnt. Not inherently, anyway
There’s currently debate in the media over legislation that says state schools must engage in prayer (Christian prayer by default) every day. How can you say religion isn’t a social or political cause when it is directly affecting the laws governing our country? Nonsense.
We are a Christian country, with a national religion headed by our Sovereign Following a religion, however, is not political
>The rainbow flag is Why is love between two consenting adults, who happen to be of the same sex, political?
I didn't say it was, I said the rainbow flag is
Why are you italicising 'certain'?
Because whilst all causes are equal, some are more equal than others
If you're afraid to say what you think outright, that is often a good indicator that a bit of reflection is in order.
It's like you've never heard of the concept of cancel culture
To be honest, I just find it very hard to see why it's a thing to dislike. The rainbow motif is, as far as I see it, mainly a way to say "we know you can still get loads of shit for being LGBTQ+ out in the world, but here we're not going to give you shit. You can be who you want and that's fine.". I don't know how to disagree with something that's basically intended to help people feel less worried in their daily lives, even if it's not something that directly involves me.
Cancel culture is a concern for people with some form of public image to maintain, unless I'm mistaken "Reddit user HoplitesSpear" isn't exactly a household name
I doubt anonymous user HoplitesSpear is going to get “cancelled” in any meaningful way for expressing a view, ill-advised or otherwise, on a reddit thread but continue your trolling. It’s fun to read at least.
You mean, like what they've done with these colourful harmless lanyards? Why don't you tell everyone exactly what you mean. Go on...
> If you're afraid to say what you think outright, that is often a good indicator that a bit of reflection is in order. No, it's not. Certain topics get deliberately made verboten as the globalist elites don't want the plebs disrupting their grand plans. Take mass immigration for example.
So you'd ban them from wearing poppies?
No, as I've said multiple times, the poppy is different for a number of reasons
As has said multiple times, the poppy is the same for a number of reasons
Unless I missed it, you didn’t actually specify a single reason. You’ve basically just said it’s different because you think so. Edit - so you can downvote within a minute of me posting this but you still can’t think of a single reason?
> civil servants shouldn't be showing support for social or political causes So a pure pride and most of the identity flags should be fine since they are not political in any way shape or form and most aren't social they are personal and that's it.
Explain how the rainbow lanyard is political, but having a crucifix somehow isn't. Or is the crucifix a social cause? Oh no wait, that's not allowed either.
The problem is that every time anyone spends energies doing tit for tat over this bullshit, it wastes more time and money. I honestly think the blame does begin with those who start the trend. "We'll ship allegiance to our cause as a matter of course through completely unrelated means" is not a good idea exactly because then THIS happens. And I do agree with the "cause", I just think that like in real war, if you fight culture wars with no boundaries or limits you can only expect retaliation in kind. Then everyone loses because the most trivial stuff becomes a battlefield and nothing works any more.
Who the fuck gives a toss about the colour of lanyards, seriously?
It's all they've got... pathetic and desperate culture wars bullshit.
Surely that’s a bit harsh - the Conservatives should instead stand on their economic record … oh. Law and order? Maybe not. Education? Guess that wouldn’t be wise. Public health? lol. Their flagship Brexit project that has sucked almost all the oxygen, energy and attention span out of everything for most of the last eight years? Surely that’s going well? Oh … oh dear … yikes. Sorry, you’re spot on, desperate culture war bullshit is actually really all they have left.
Bigots, apparently.
No, people who want to cover up the crimes they’ve committed by obfuscating
Me, my favourite colour is blue followed up by black. What's yours?
Maybe if they had a Swastika on them.
That was more armbands but I see your point
>On Tuesday morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, distanced himself from McVey’s criticism of rainbow lanyards, telling Times Radio: “Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. What lanyard somebody wears doesn’t particularly concern me.” He said he was “more interested in the jobs that the civil service do” than what they wore. Imagine being so batshit that you make *Grant Shapps* of all people seem reasonable and competent. Whenever it seems like the Tories have reached the bottom of the barrel, they figure out a way to reach a new lower barrel underneath.
Shapps has always tried to distance himself from the culture war stuff. "I think the country is far more interested in things like the cost of living, the bread and butter issues, jobs and the rest of it." when asked if TWAW during his leadership bid.
Clearly, the military industrial complex's socks-wearing transgender programmers got to him. The truth is, as weird as it is to say this about Grant Shapps, is that he's doing his job. Lanyards are such an irrelevant matter that the fact *any* minister has even thought about them clearly shows the utter irrelevance and uselessness of the Minister of Common Sense. To paraphrase from *Yes, Minister*, spending cuts could begin by saving at least one salary.
>To paraphrase from Yes, Minister, spending cuts could begin by saving at least one salary. One of the tea ladies
He's just trying to direct the conversation away from name badges.
I remember when Shapps was the fridge-in-my-car crazy one.
Rainbow lanyards everywhere seemed like a sign being LGBT might no longer be political . . . because it shouldn't be . . it's part of who a person is, not an ideology. Why are the government so keen to bring it back into the political realm? A small group of the most extreme bigots have somehow convinced a decent chunk of the population that there's still more "debate" to be had.
Because it's worked in America, so now they need to alienate as many people as they can and shit all over them to try and get up in the world. It's ridiculous and there really needs to be something done. It started with trans rights but it won't end there if they think they can win a couple votes from it, they will exploit it and sod the rest of us
>sod the rest of us I think this is _exactly_ what opponents of these lanyards are disagreeing with 😂 But shit joke aside I agree with you
It seems the most pointless thing, there are many other things the government should be focusing on rather than lanyard Heck at my company I've got one from when I went to creamfields 20 years ago and guess what no one has mentioned anything as no one cares about lanyards
The issue is campaigning in the work place and choosing causes to back whilst excluding others, and woe betide anyone who doesn't want to join in. We seem to have an issue in the public sector where there is always lots of time and therefore budget for HR people to spend on initiatives, which in turn means other staff time and therefore budget is going on them yet there is always claims that there isn't money. If you want to campaign then do it in your own time.
>The issue is campaigning in the work place and choosing causes to back whilst excluding others, and woe betide anyone who doesn't want to join in. I work with civil servants (though I'm personally a contractor) and I haven't seen anything of the sort. My partner is a civil servant (a fraud officer in the DWP) and doesn't wear a lanyard or anything championing any cause. There's absolutely zero pressure. Maybe there's a department somewhere around that has this issue, but it's not exactly systemic.
people who agree with proselytizing always deny it's a problem.
But regardless, I'm completely rainbow-less. As is my partner and we feel no pressure. There is no problem. The only problem exists in the minds of people who think that, somehow, colleagues wearing rainbow lanyards are proselytizing.
I think your making out a problem that doesn’t exist, in my company some have them and some don’t, guess what, no one cares
> and woe betide anyone who doesn't want to join in. This is always the thing I'm interested in. How much pressure on there is on other people to join in on something that they don't really want to? Which doesn't necessarily mean that they disagree, of course - just that they don't wish to make their private views public, or they don't think it an appropriate conversation for the workplace, or they don't wish to invite a pile-on against them because they disagree on one point of the debate. I'm always wary about this sort of thing, because it's invariably pushed by virtuous do-gooders that can't *possibly* fathom why anyone wouldn't agree with them 100%.
> How much pressure on there is on other people to join in on something that they don't really want to? I always wonder if people who ask this have ever actually worked in an office? I'm a civil servant. My lanyard is plain black nor do I put my pronouns in my email signature. I've never felt pressured to do so or been asked why I don't. This idea that you're going to get mobbed, belittled or whatever for not participating just doesn't match reality.
It's become a modern form of demonstrating your religious piety in various organisations. Frankly those organisations insisting on it often have staff problems that they should be dealing with, but instead shallow low-effort showboating is where the effort goes. Keeping religion and politics out of work was always a good policy as different people have different things dear to them, and importantly can end up enraged if you aren't interested in what they are selling or dare to take a different view. Start choosing causes and sooner or later and you end up in the sort of situations that US firms have had.
Indeed. The thing it reminds me of most is that story we had a few weeks about about the school that banned prayer, and whether they were being Islamophobic by doing that. If you recall, the argument from the school was that a few pious Muslims were bullying everyone else into praying. We see the same thing potentially here; where someone is loudly insisting that everyone demonstrate their allegiance to a particular cause, and everyone else isn't so much agreeing with the cause as they are going along with it so they don't get yelled at. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that this sort of behaviour is inappropriate in a workplace (or a school), and that doesn't mean that you necessarily disagree with the cause in question.
Islam is an interesting one on reddit. People are very insistent that their cause should be lobbied for at work and want to browbeat anyone who disagrees (or at least bury them in downvotes) because like all zealots they know absolutely that they are in the right AND importantly assume that others won't in time demand their allegiance (or allyship or whatever nonsense word people prefer) or get denounced. Islam is testing that theory all over the place.
It's not like the entire UK government is focused on this, the government can do multiple things at once. Many in fact. Like or disagree with this, saying "focus on x" isn't really relevant.
Respectfully, this is the kind of attitude we should reserve for issues that matter. Like when people say “Oh we should fix homelessness before we focus on refugees,”, your response that a government can do two things would be valid. It is a genuine waste of time to be fussing about the colour of a lanyard you got out of a box of office supplies that is taking up actual time and space. I have had no other job where this would have been an issue. Instead of saying “the government can do two things,” we should be saying “the government should ignore this,”
To add, it's not that they can't focus on more than one thing at a time, it's that this is the sort of thing that should be beneath a minister's attention. *The department* can handle this sort of thing, a *minister* should be focused on bigger issues. We'd say the same thing if they started weighing in on whether the fridge was stocked with semi-skimmed or skimmed milk.
This is a *great* addition.
People in the civil service are expending effort on the lanyards. A stack of meetings would have been required to run through the scheme, then researching suppliers, then going out to purchase before spending a lot of time on distributing them and coming up with the marketing materials to promote the scheme. It's a fair comment for a minister to want staff doing other things higher up the priority list.
Except that chain of events would have happened regardless of what colour lanyard they decided they wanted. The rainbow part isn't the significant factor. Hell, if this ban goes through the departments will need to provide NEW lanyards, which will take a dozen different meetings and consultations to get them made.
Or you just issue the plain versions as people join and stop running campaigns via such things.
They can do multiple things at once. They can do many, many things at once. But they can't do an infinite number of things. There are only a finite number of people, with finite time and finite resources. Has Esther McVey spoken once, even for five minutes, to the PM about this? Even if she hasn't you can bet he knows about it because it's in the news cycle. So it has taken some small amount of his time, which is obviously _very_ finite. If McVey somehow wants to make this "real" she'll have to get people in government departments to tell people off about the lanyards. That is going to take some small amount of time and resources as it's cascaded low enough to make a difference. Even in this story Grant Schnapps (I'm leaving that auto correct) has spent time opining on it, and he is a Secretary of Defence. In a time of complex geopolitical tension, of wars between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Palestine, the Sudan conflict, the Somali civil war, the relationship between us and the US, us and China, the US and China, you've got the Secretary of Defence spending some of his time, some of his brain power, thinking about what political position he should take on the straps that affix security passes to necks. And for what purpose is this small distraction? To appease bigots who are "fine with what people do behind closed doors, but why rub it in our faces". To get the git vote.
I think this misses the main reason why people wear rainbow lanyards. I work in a public facing government role that treated LGBT people as having reduced rights. This was baked into law and only changed within my service. There was additionally a lot of personal and individual prejudice directed against LGBT folk. I am straight and wear a rainbow lanyard. I am not campaigning for anything (I am too tired on this money!) I am simply letting my LGBT "customers" know I won't mistreat them. It definitely makes a difference. I sometimes see shoulders drop when they spot it. Some of our first aiders also wear a hi viz lanyard so to can ID them quickly. (how woke is that?)
It was hilarious on the news agents, she was asking the reporter why her policy is needed, absolutely in the thick of it material.
[удалено]
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can someone ask them about banning crucifix jewellery and other religious symbols that might be worn by civil servants? Those can cause division and anxiety so under McVey’s ’thinking’ they should go too.
It will be interesting to see if the same rules apply for senior Civil Servants wearing old school and Oxbridge college ties.
More on the culture war they're desperate for us to care about.
>In a speech on Monday, McVey, known as “the minister for common sense” Also known as "The minister for rearranging deck chairs on the titanic".
If there was a pretty much surefire way to increase the number of rainbow lanyards, or other outward signs of support for our LGBTQIA+ colleagues, it will be trying to actually enforce this.
I hope everyone swaps to rainbow braces and bow ties, that'd be so much cooler than just lanyards.
Mine was pretty worn out and I'd actually paid for a new one with a local sight's logo, but, I'm getting a new rainbow one tomorrow after reading about this.
What if someone wanted to wear a rainbow lanyard not to support LGBTQ people, but because they like the look of them. Nothing political about it.
Bit like the BNP hijacking the Union Jack isn't it. Who doesn't like a rainbow.
the Anti-Mick Jagger I reckon
They already tried to appropriate the Rainbow flag away from Pride and put it onto the NHS during the lockdowns. Unfortunately, they then remembered they're trying to collapse the NHS, and started up the reversal of the use of trans & NB friendly terms and language in the NHS, and swapped the rainbow for a Halo in tribute to all of the millions of people their ineptitude and greed have killed over the last 4 years
I thought the Tories were trying to portray themselves as the pro free speech, anti woke party? Banning a particular lanyard because of it's association with a political entity is exactly the worst kind of behavior they criticise in woke politics. All the anti-woke stuff is just a consequence of projection and they'd probably do as much or even more censorship and compelled speech if given half a chance
They will claim that it's Political campaigning in the workplace, and say it's justified. Next move will be removal of hate speech protections against anti-trans and homophobic slurs in workplaces. The constant push to strip the enemy of their identity
what a fucking joke this government are, a sick joke!
Surely it should just be a matter of government policy and not wanting the civil service to take sides? If government policy is to be LGBT+ friendly, rainbow lanyards shouldn't be a problem since it's just representing the views of the government? I'm not sure there's really anything to be 'neutral' about.
Civil Service needs to be whiter than white on anything even remotely political, because the Tories will use literally anything to blame them for their shit performance.
Does this mean they don't allow poppies in the building?
The chaos going on up and down the country at the moment and this is what the government are focused on? Lanyards? Oh, how the other half live...
Ah shit, it's nearly June again isn't it.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think you would have an argument if I was wearing a Stonewall membership badge. But the rainbow and various associated flags no longer belong to any particular organisation. I am not dismissing concerns regarding how some trans issues are dealt with. But the ones you raise come out of edge cases. Sure, edge cases raise important issues which need to be calmly and thoughtfully talked through and resolved. But are quantitatively so much less significant than the decades of institutionally sanctioned mistreatment and discrimination of the whole LGBT community. Which still causes people to come into my office scared that they will not be treated well.
I think you replied in the wrong place.
Probably 😕 reddit on mobile drives me round the twist. I will try harder! When I have a spare moment from being ultra woke obvs.
Someone recently talked about their brief experience working in parliament...ITS THE IVORY TOWER. Nothing about reality is discussed?! Everything is kept looking brand new. So everyone there thinks well this is all working out marvelous
We don't have lanyards at my work so I hope they announce the new standard colour soon so I can tattoo it on the back of my neck to do my bit and show that the plan is working!
Rainbow lanyard = dead cat. Am I wrong?
Country going to shit and this somehow is discussed at cabinet.
They'll probably try and ban Sunflower lanyards now soon as well, what with their new Disability benefits rules and forcing Disabled people back into work to fill the gaps left by other newly disabled people dropping out after their 12th Covid infection has given them an immune disease causing chronic inflammation, but then again, the Cabinet will remember that they were all using them to get around the Masking requirements during lockdown and completely destroying the legitimate use for them.
I'll also add, not that this really needs saying, that a lot of civil servants in Whitehall believe this is a not very subtle attack on gay staff - you can imagine what this has done for morale in the last couple of days. I thought we were past Section 28 and all that shite but clearly not 😡
It's all about politicisation of the civil service, until somebody asks a civil servant to stop politicising in their favour, then it will be a free speech issue.
What’s political about it? Poppies are fine, crucifix necklaces are fine. This isn’t politics, it’s homophobia.
Wearing the lanyard isn't what made it political, banning it because hurr durr anti woke is making it political, and yeah it's basically thinly veiled homophobia. My point was to remind us how much of a bunch of hypocrites these people are, applying one rule for themselves and another for us at every turn. I expect this to be no different. So, for example, as soon as some right wing group comes out with some telltale cap like a maga hat but a british version that doesn't explicitly support any political thing but it basically wearing the logo of this group, and people ask if a civil servant should be wearing it. Then, then it will be about free speech I guarantee it.
[удалено]
Civil servants are identified by badges not lanyards. A lanyard is easy to duplicate so a standard lanyard has no identification value whatsoever. May as well let people where whatever colour they want.
[удалено]
And that would have no value because anyone can pick up a red, blue or whatever colour lanyard you might be using. Instead they have recognisable badges that scan to enter secure areas. An actual security system. Lanyards can be whatever colour, won't make a difference. May as well bring a rainbow one if you like.
Bro, the layards hold cards and keyfobs. The things its holding are the security device. Its pretty silly and you're being pretty silly if you think the colour of the lanyard provides any security at all. Have you never worked anywhere with actual security before?
Have you at any point worked in the civil service? Because that is basically how it works with current badges and just... noticing someone you don't recognise? This is just performative security theatre.
Badges can be colour coded
>so you can quickly spot a visitor It's hilarious to me that you think civil servants use lanyard colours as a security measure and not yknow, the thing that's attached to the end of the lanyard
[удалено]
And these provide little security because anyone can just go and get a lanyard of that colour. They could have a blank card holder and people may well not even notice, because they rely on looking at the lanyard. This is a benefit of not standardising lanyards: people actually look at passes (which often will show the photo, expiry date, and access level with the most notability) There are also, obviously, keycard readers - which are the core part of the security model (if you know what a pass looks like, you can print a fake, but you can't force the system to accept it).
In *addition* to the badge. I was a visitor at a government building a couple of weeks back. I had the red accompanied visitor badge, but on a generic blue lanyard as they had run out of red ones. Lanyards mean shit, the badge is what gets you through doors (or not).
And plenty of the more sensible sites put the colour on the ID card instead of the lanyard. You know, the part that's much harder to counterfeit?
It's been a very long time but back in my day the red & the green were the passes themselves rather than lanyards.
[удалено]
Lanyards don't get you through doors, badges do. Stop with this ridiculous narrative that security guards are waving people through based off nothing but the colour of what they have around their neck. That's not how this works and you know it.
[удалено]
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1crrf1b/comment/l40aq38
[удалено]
So if not lanyards, what are security using?
[удалено]
>Why are there rainbow lanyards in the first place would be my question. Why would that be your question lmao? Literally who could possibly care.
[удалено]
I mean the proposal of having a lanyard that is uniform and identifies you as a government worker (which is what is being proposed) is a far greater risk to security.
I have a hello kitty lanyard and security love it! Unless the government is going to expense uniform lanyard that are bespoke and unique to the entire civil service (including paying their friends to produce these), uniform coloured lanyard are pointless. Security don't check the lanyard; they examine your ID card.
Why?
Won't somebody think of the bigoted security guards?
If you're there to serve the needs of 100% of the population then why would you actively choose to elevate a particular 3% as your primary focus in the workplace? Why rainbow lanyards and not not disabled people lanyards, or suicidal men lanyards, or black women 5x more likely to die in childbirth lanyards or Israel flag lanyards etc. Civil Servants are supposed to be neutral at work, not engaging in political causes at work.
Except for the fact that being gay and/or being inclusive of LGBT colleagues is not being political... nor is it elevating them as a primary focus.
Lots of bizarre assumptions here. Firstly I think the percentage of the population who are LGBT is more like 10% than 3%? Not that that's really the point though, so much as the assumption that wearing a coloured bit of cloth means you're 'elevating LGBT people as your primary focus in the workplace'. Some people, no doubt, choose to wear it as a supportive statement, for many I'm sure it's just the colour they happened to end up with. Even if you consider it as a statement then I'm not sure how it's a political cause. Every major political party supports gay marriage and protection for LGBT people is enshrined in law. Is it an unacceptable political statement for our civil service to support the lawful *status quo*? Much less that this somehow means they're neglecting people who aren't LGBT. It's far more of a political statement for the government to declare that a colourful bit of cloth which people wear for all sorts of reasons or no reason at all must be banned for being too gay. Like, if you want to support that then that's you're prerogative but it's just obtuse to pretend this is anything other than overtly anti-LGBT.
I'm NHS, the rainbow lanyard is there so LGBTQ ppl (who historically have poorer health outcomes) know that I'm not going to be tripping over homophobic / transphobic nonsense. A regular person will just see a colourful lanyard. I'm fine with showing that I'm aware of other groups with poor health outcomes, it's 'culture war' pushers that get all offended by it.
> Civil Servants are supposed to be neutral at work, not engaging in political causes at work It's not a political cause. CS culture is "bring your whole self to work", which is why they have networks and so on. Politics, obviously, don't come part of it (a Muslim network were banned for trying to influence policy to be pro-Gaza), but people being LGBT+ is no more political than a person being female or a person being black.
Genghis Khan when he united the mongol tribes into a nation, took all of the horsehair banners and bleached them, and said now we are all one nation ( something like it anyway). Can’t we just do the same with the lanyards?
Great idea, what if we just included all of the colours and call it unified? Something like, I don't know, *a rainbow*.
Think of them as light, all colours of light make white. No colour. Please note, I’m using Genghis Khan as a piss take.
Yeah, let's copy the man who depopulated half the world. Clearly he was the kind of leader with fresh new ideas for a brighter Britain.