Thelma Takes Charge Part 1
Update 315
Lots going on, dear readers, so I am splitting this one into two parts -second part tomorrow.
Welcome to the Leading Women Season. OK, ok we are starting with not the usual heroes against the establishment but with anti-heroes against the establishment. But, be fair, they were pushed into it!! It started as an impromptu girls’ holiday and then Louise shot the guy who was attempting to rape Thelma. And then Thelma managed to lose all their money. From this point on Thelma decides to make amends by taking charge as they head for Mexico.
Geena Davis is Thelma Dickinson and Susan Sarandon is Louise Sawyer.
Any suggestions for the Leading Women Season gratefully received 😎
BTW, in the last update, when discussing various UK political parties, thanks to a wonderful reader for pointing out that I forgot to mention the Social Democratic Party (SDP) who are on our side of the argument.
Vote No in Irish Referendum
VOTING “YES” WILL MEAN MASSIVE INJUSTICE TOWARDS WOMEN
February 7, 2024
Irish citizens are being asked to vote in two referendums to change our Constitution. This is being widely sold as progressive, modern and inclusive. However, it is imperative to pause, reflect, and consider the ramifications of our choice. The Countess is honoured to feature a compelling piece by a guest writer , Nicola Sheehan, who advocates for a resounding “No” to removing women from the text. With profound insight she rejects this attempt to erase this explicit recognition of the contribution of women to society from our founding document.
I am not usually vocal about Irish politics, unless I believe a massive injustice is taking place, and I do believe a massive injustice towards women will take place if a “Yes” vote prevails on, of all days, International Women’s Day, 8 March 2024, when a Referendum is being held to make two amendments to our Constitution.
To anyone who may be undecided or tentatively thinking about voting “Yes”, because you may have heard in the media and on social media that Article 41.2 is “sexist and outdated”, or suggests that a woman’s place is in the home (it DOESNT), or that by voting “No” you will be doing women a disservice and voting to keep them in their place, let me highlight the following:
Article 41.2 currently reads:
In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
Yes, the language is certainly archaic but, breaking it down, in theory it gives all women and mothers a choice – that “mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”. The part I have underlined is incredibly important, because it is so strongly worded. What this means, in theory (I say in theory as it has never been tested in a class action against the State, because honestly, what women have ever had the time to do this?) is that the State should look after mothers who choose to stay at home (which they don’t), and a successful class action could order the State to spend money to provide services and benefits it hadn’t budgeted for. In effect, Article 41.2 empowers and protects women who choose to stay at home; it does not make women stay at home nor does it state that a woman’s place is in the home.
This Referendum also does nothing for carers. If they had really wanted to, they could have inserted “and carers” into Article 41.2 as follows:
In particular, the State recognises that by
her(their) life within the home, woman (and carers) give(s) to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers (and carers) shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their
duties(responsibilities) in the home.
There. Fixed it for you. But the Government has chosen not to do that.
We are told we live in an equal society, and women do not need this outdated language in the Constitution anymore. While, to all intents and purposes, we may live in an equal society, we do not live in an equitable society – there is a huge difference. The majority of women, not men, stay at home to raise their family. The majority of women, not men, are the carers for the those with a disability and elderly people. These are the facts. Even holding it on International Women’s Day is a kick in the teeth. As schools will be closed to facilitate this farce of a Referendum, who is more likely to be taking a day off work to mind said children? It’s obvious, isn’t it? Women.
The majority of women of pensionable age are discriminated against because they took on these caring roles during their lifetime and, as such, are ineligible for the same pensions that the majority of men receive. In fact, I believe that one of the unintended (or maybe intended?) consequences of a “Yes” vote would be further pension discrimination against women.
A current generation of women are currently not entitled to a State contributory pension, being entitled either to a non-contributory pension, which is means tested, or added to their husband’s pension as a qualified adult, this portion also being means-tested. The majority of men of pensionable age qualify for a contributory pension, while the majority of women qualify for a pension which is means tested.(https://www.ageaction.ie/sites/default/files/attachments/gender_discimination_and_age_august_2016.pdf When women do qualify for a contributory pension, it is more than likely a reduced one, according to European findings, available online.
The above brings me back to Article 41.2, on the basis of which an entire generation of women could potentially take a class action against the State, for giving the State, by their unpaid work in the home and care, ‘a support without which the common good cannot be achieved’. This should be recognised in their pension entitlements. As it stands, this Article has never done women any harm, so why are they trying to change it? That is what I would fear: the intended and unintended consequences of the change.
I’ve linked some articles below which are easily found online. These are specific to Ireland, although the problem is Europe wide.
https://www.nwci.ie/download/pdf/pension_sample4.pdf (The NWCI has a pension justice campaign re. pension discrimination against women yet, surprisingly, are urging for a “yes” vote; unsurprisingly, they receive their majority of funding from the Government)
The other vote concerns the family, with the new wording to read: “… whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships”. The Government has neither defined durable relationships nor will do so ahead of the Referendum, leaving it up to the courts to decide. How can we vote on this when we do not have a definition of “durable relationships”? Roderic O’Gorman has said in the Dáil that it does not include throuples, but why wouldn’t it if we do not have a definition? For that reason, I believe it is too vague to vote to change our Constitution.
I will be voting NO to both amendments on 8 March, to protect women, to protect carers and to protect the family. To anybody who may be undecided or considering a “Yes” vote, I hope the above gives you pause for thought.
#VoteNoRef24 #VoteNoNo
Galway Talks
Sorcha Nic Lochlainn of The Countess was interviewed on the radio programme, Galway Talks. Excellent interview. The one thing I would have added is that it is also likely, indeed certain, that the Irish Government are also keen to erase the word ‘woman’ because of their full blooded support of gender ideology.
Vote No continued
Brilliant analysis by Gary Kavanagh in wonderful Gript of the finances of the National Women’s Council Ireland (NWCI), known by many Irish feminists as the National Willy Council since they include men within the definition of ‘woman’ and have a trans identifying man (father of three) on their board of directors!
They are virtually entirely funded by the Irish Government. Can it be lawful, in these circumstances, that they are leading the Yes campaign for the Referendum!?
AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT THE FUNDING OF IRELAND’S LOUDEST NGO (08 February)
An analysis of the last decade of the accounts of the National Women’s Council of Ireland, from 2013-2022, shows that the organisation has become nearly entirely reliant on government money, with over 96% of the organisation’s staffing costs over the last 3 years being paid for with grants from government departments and publicly funded entities such as the HSE.
During the same period those staffing costs increased from €443,000 to €805,000, an increase which has been nearly entirely funded by public money.
Grant reports covering the period between 2017 and 2022 show us that public money has directly paid an average of roughly 90% of the staffing costs of the NWCI. Staffing costs would cover staff wages, pension contributions, possibly bonuses, etc. And that average is getting higher; If we take only the last three years we have data for, 2022-2020, we see that an average of 96% of the NWCI’s staffing costs have been paid for directly by grants from government departments and the HSE.
Between 2020 and 2022 the NWCI paid €2.24 million to cover staff costs – €2.15 million of that bill was paid for with public money. In 2020 98.7% of the NWCI’s staffing costs were paid for with public money – against staff costs of €704,191 the NWCI received €695,085 in grants.
In the last ten years the NWCI has had an income of roughly €9.2 million, of which roughly €7.4 million came from either governmental or publicly funded entities. The single largest donor over that time was the Department of Justice who, over the last decade, have given the NWCI €3.47 million. Most of that was prior to 2021, after which DoJ funding largely stopped and the Department of Equality stepped in to pick up the slack – between 2021/22 the DoE has given the NWCI €1.175 million.
Both the DoJ and DoE grants were specifically granted to cover NWCI staffing and administrative costs to allow the NWCI to “provide a women’s equality analysis on all policy areas, consult with women and women’s organisations and to leverage additional private funds to promote women’s equality.” In 2022 the total value of the DoE grant for this purpose was €611,000, of which €521,991 went to staff costs of the NWCI.
Between 2013 and 2022 membership subscriptions and donations made up roughly 4.1% of the NWCI’s income. That figure does not include grants from the J Rowntree Trust and Atlantic Philanthropies as donations – the NWCI’s accounts initially class income from those sources as grants but, after 2015, begin to reclassify those grants as donations, including figures that had been classified as grants in the previous years accounts.
Non-governmental funding used to be a significant part of the NWCI’s funding, but that changed in 2015 when the NWCI stopped receiving money from Atlantic Philanthropies – in 2014 the NWCI pulled in €365,623 in non-governmental or private funding, in 2015 they took €80,148, and by 2017 it had fallen to its lowest point at €31,157. That figure has gone up, in 2022 it was €137,876, but not as quickly as public funding. Over that period the share of NWCI income that came from public monies increased from 51%, in 2013, to a height of over 90%, in 2018, before falling to 83% in 2022.
2015 was the last year the NWCI received less than 80% of its funding from public monies.
Private funding
Between 2020 and 2022 the NWCI brought in €3.24 million in income, of which €524,145 was not public money. The two single largest contributors to that amount were Miscellaneous Income, at €136,545, and Member Subscriptions, at €112,580.
Over the same period the NWCI received grants of €85,205 from the Centre for Reproductive Rights; €75,341 from Novo Tides; and €51,694 from the Community Foundation Ireland. Of those three organisations two are American and one is Irish.
Community Foundation Ireland is an Irish organisation which “aims to help people to engage in more effective and rewarding philanthropic activity by connecting donors to the most deserving and impactful causes.” Ireland, they say, “is a work in progress.”
The Centre for Reproductive Rights is an American NGO which “uses the power of law to advance reproductive rights as fundamental human rights around the world.” In June of 2023 it had assets of $112,428,124.
Novo Tides is a bit more unclear; the NWCI’s accounts do not give any details of the grant, or the granter, and basic online searches showed no relevant organisation of that name. However, October 2020 saw the Tides Foundation, a donor advised fund based in San Francisco, launch a partnership with the NoVo Foundation, an American private foundation controlled by Peter Buffett, son of investor Warren Buffet, to “build girls’ power and create communities supported by organizations and individuals that put girls’ needs, dreams and futures at the center.”
Whilst we can’t be certain it would appear, given that 2021 was the first year the NWCI notes this grant in their accounts, the Novo Tides name in the NWCI accounts, and the shared interests of the Tides Foundation, NoVo, and the NWCI, fairly likely that this is the source of the grant.
It is worth noting that the Washington Examiner has called the Tides Foundation a “leader in secret political money” through the provision of “dark money.” The foundation, according to the Washington Examiner, “pioneered the concept of providing a cut-out for donors who don’t wish to be associated in public with a particular cause.”
This refers to the foundation’s practice of allowing donors to make a donation to the foundation with the understanding that the foundation will then use that donation to issue a grant to a different organisation. This allows donors to put space between themselves and the third party they wish to fund, which can have the effect of obfuscating the initial source of the money as any public disclosure will show that the money came from the Tides Foundation rather than the individual donor.
How much of a membership organisation is the NWCI?
Whilst the NWCI certainly has organisations which are members of it a more interesting question has been the extent to which the NWCI is directly supported by the women of Ireland. One would expect, given the NWCI’s position that it is the representative body for women in Ireland, that there would be considerable support for its work from Irish women.
Looking at the amount of individual membership subs on the NWCI accounts gives us a way of working out roughly how many paying, individual members the NWCI has. They charge a minimum of €60 a year, paid either in full or in monthly instalments of €5, to become a ‘Feminist Changemaker,’ but do suggest an annual payment of €120 as a “I’m Feeling Generous” option.
The 2022 accounts list “Feminist Changemakers/Individual membership sub” as coming to €13,441. That is to say that, if all members pay €60 the NWCI has 224 individual members, and if they all pay €120 the NWCI has 112 individual members. Given that the NWCI’s website states that 190 organisations are members of the NWCI it is entirely possible that more NGOs are members of the NWCI than actual people.
This analysis is somewhat complicated by two facts.
Firstly, the NWCI have incorrectly set up their donation system and you can donate less than the minimum required if you set their donation page to make an annual donation.
Their system allows you to give a custom donation, presumably with the idea that there are people out there willing to give the NWCI more than €120 a year. They, wisely, set this so that you could not enter less than the minimum monthly payment, €5, but forgot they had to set the limit higher on the annual donation page to avoid people giving them anything between €5 and €60.
Not wishing to take undue advantage of sloppy work I, generously, gave the NWCI €10 for the privilege of holding the title of feminist changemaker, at least until the end of the year.
Secondly, whilst becoming a Feminist Changemaker is listed in the NWCI’s accounts as a “Feminist Changemakers/Individual membership sub,” and parts of the NWCI website sell it as becoming a member, the NWCI amended its constitution in 2021 to remove individual memberships. More correctly they amended their constitution to explicitly state that the only members of the NWCI were organisations, not individuals. The term ‘member’ is now defined in the constitution as “an organisation who becomes a member of the Company pursuant to these regulations” and the constitution specifies that “The Company shall have one category of Member.” That replaced the old definition which stated the term member could refer to “an organisation or individual.” It’s unclear why the NWCI felt it necessary to make this change.
Given that, and given that other parts of the NWCI website studiously avoid calling the programme a membership, it would appear entirely possible that the NWCI technically has zero individual members, and that the programme it is selling is not a membership at all.
I did ask the NWCI, prior to the publication of this piece, to clarify the basis on which they call those who join the Feminist Changemaker programme members given the constitutional change put through in 2021 – they did not respond.
Regardless of those uncertainties one thing that is absolutely clear is that the NWCI could not sustain itself purely through membership subscriptions and individual donations. In fact, there’s not a single year in the past decade in which annual subscriptions and donations would have, combined, been enough to cover the lower end of the current salary scale provided for NWCI Director Orla O’Connor (€82,000 – €97,375).
Nor could it sustain itself on the money it receives from private donors. The NWCI is, bluntly, entirely reliant on the largess of the state to continue to exist. Were all state funding of the NWCI to stop tomorrow the cash reserves of the organisation would be simply unable to support the organisation for more than a few months.
The Referendum Campaign and the NWCI
An obvious question that arises from our analysis of the NWCI’s finances is the extent to which an entity which relies so totally on the state to exist can be considered to be independent, and to what extent such an entities’ activity, given that a near totality of their staffing costs are paid for directly by the state, can be considered to be independent.
This is a particularly interesting question given the judgement that came from the 1995 McKenna v. An Taoiseach court case. That case saw the MEP Patricia McKenna bring an appeal to the Supreme Court, having had her claim dismissed at the High Court level, arguing that the Government’s use of public money to promote a ‘Yes’ vote in the then upcoming divorce referendum was unconstitutional and infringed upon “the concept of equality which is fundamental to the democratic nature of the State.”
The Supreme Court produced a judgement which stated that, whilst it was permissible for the State to spend public money to provide the public with unbiased information about referendums, the use of taxpayer money to promote a particular outcome during a referendum was “an interference with the democratic process” and an infringement on concepts which were “fundamental to the democratic nature of the State.”
I’m not qualified to discuss the legal state of the McKenna judgement or to argue if the NWCI getting involved in a referendum campaign when 96% of their staffing costs are paid for directly by the state could legally be considered to constitute the state funding of a particular referendum outcome, but many of the points brought up in the McKenna judgement can be considered as civil, rather than legal, arguments.
To wit, it is a legitimate opinion to say that it is improper for state money to be used to attempt to influence the public to vote a particular way in a referendum as to allow it would be to undermine the democratic nature of the process.
On that basis, one can seriously question if the NWCI referendum campaign, particularly coming as it did in the wake of Minister Roderick O’Gorman’s comment to the Irish Times that “any organisation that sees itself as progressive and as wanting to advance progressive change” would have to explain why they did not support the referendum, should be considered to be an improper intrusion of state money into a referendum process.
Minister O’Gorman’s Department, between 2021 and 2022, paid over €1 million euro to cover the staff costs of the NWCI. And, again, between 2013 and 2022 membership subscriptions and donations made up only 4.1% of the NWCI’s income.
It appears to be a simple fact that the NWCI could not campaign in favour of the passing of these referendums without state support, because without state support it doesn’t appear that the NWCI would exist. And the NWCI isn’t just campaigning for the referendums, they seem to be leading the campaign. The “YesYes” website, which lists over a dozen Irish organisations which support the passing of the upcoming referendums, lists its contact email as yesyes@nwci.ie and its contact location as “National Women’s Council of Ireland.”
The NWCI were asked, prior to publication of this piece, how they were ensuring that public money was not being used for the NWCI’s referendum campaign given that it appears that nearly all employees of the NWCI are paid for directly by public money – they did not respond.
The NWCI were also sent several of the figures we had pulled together from their accounts, from the percentage of their income that came from memberships and donations to the percentage of their staff costs which the government directly covers, prior to publication in order to let them comment on the figures or dispute their accuracy – they did not respond.
Kemi Badenoch
Millie Cooke in GB News ( 'Being a woman is biological' Kemi Badenoch wades in on trans row as minister slams 'academic feminism' 09 February) reports:
Kemi Badenoch has waded into the debate on trans issues, saying her identity as a woman is "very biological".
She said that "being a woman is a much stronger part of my identity than being black or Nigerian", adding: "It is so real. Bringing a child into the world grounds you in the reality of being a woman.
"Puberty, menstruation, menopause. It is very biological. And I grew up in a place where people would exploit that."
In an interview with the Times, she suggested she is scornful of "academic feminism with all its buzzwords".
Kemi Badenoch© GB News
The Business Secretary added: "My feminism is about, ‘I am more vulnerable physically. People will try to exploit that and make me feel less of a person.’ And I will defend myself and anyone else in that position."
The full article is here:
Just before Christmas, Ms Badenoch gave a sterling performance before the Women’s and Equalities Committee. I reported on that here:
She was asked for further information by the Committee and she has now provided that in a really excellent letter ( thanks to Clive Simpson for providing the link to this letter):
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/43255/documents/215243/default/
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
As regular readers know, I believe that a lot of the gender madness is introduced into organisations and government departments by EDI Departments. So here is some good news. Now can we actually make it happen!!
Kumail Jaffer in The Daily Mail ( 'Minister for Common Sense' Esther McVey says councils should spend less on diversity before asking for funding 10 February) reports:
The 'Minister for Common Sense' has told cash-strapped councils to cut back on diversity spending before demanding further funding.
Esther McVey said local authorities' spending on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) courses and staff could be reviewed before any request for extra resources was granted.
Earlier this week the government announced a local government finance settlement of £64.7billion - but council chiefs have said it does not meet the 'severe cost and demand pressures' currently facing many authorities.
The average spending per council on EDI staff was £67,000 in 2022, according to a study by Conservative Way Forward - totalling £30 million a year across the country.
Mrs McVey told GB News: 'The taxpayers are saying, and I absolutely agree with them, we don't want to be paying for these ballooning away days and these spurious courses.
Esther McVey © Provided by Daily Mail
'What we want to do is to make sure you are doing the job at hand. We want to have value for money and we want to make sure there isn't any waste.
The full article is here:
Parkrun
I reported on Parkrun hiding all results of races in the last update:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/im-a-lumberjill
Here is some good news following on from that:
Oliver Trapnell in GB News ( Parkrun director quits over ‘inclusive policy’ amid trans record scrapping row 10 February) reports:
A Parkrun event director has quit over an “inclusive policy” to scrap all records from the website amid a row over trans athletes holding all female records.
Organisers received emails from Parkrun bosses warning it will no longer publish records on first-place finishers and age-grade records.
Parkrun, which invites thousands of athletes to participate in free events across the UK every Saturday morning, came under fire for the decision with former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies describing it as “cowardly”.
Parkrun event© GB News
Brockenhurst’s Parkrun event director Mick Anglim announced his departure from Parkrun following the decision, writing on Facebook that he had resigned “in response to HQ’s new ‘inclusive’ policy”.
“Everyone that I’ve spoken to agrees that the removal of age category and age grade records is a mistake,” he told Telegraph Sport.
The full article is here:
NHS Rainbow Badge Scheme
One of my first ‘experimental’ posts on this substack almost a year ago involved this badge!
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/that-scottish-nhs-badge
Therefore, I am really delighted to bring you this news. However, vast amounts of public money have been poured into the coffers of Stonewall and others over this rubbish!
Oliver Trapnell in GB News ( NHS shuts down LGBT Rainbow Badge rating scheme over ‘lack of funding’ 10 February) reports:
The NHS has ended an LGBT diversity programme after the charity leading it claimed there was a “lack of funding”.
Hospitals of the NHS Rainbow Badge scheme were rated either gold, silver or bronze after being assessed on how they treat LGBT patients.
The scheme began in 2018 as part of a smaller programme that gave out rainbow badges to staff in a bid to be more inclusive before expanding to the rating system in 2021.
Matt Hancock was a supporter of the scheme when it began and wore a rainbow badge throughout the pandemic while he was Health Secretary to Boris Johnson.
The full article is here:
Endpiece
To go with our Leading Women Season we need great women singers. Let’s start with The Pretenders, Chrissie Hynde and Pack It Up.
I may be a skunk
But you're a piece of junk, and furthermore
I don't like your trousers
Your appalling taste in women
And what about your mind
Your insipid record collection
That dumb home video centre
The usual pornography
And all you scumbags around the world
You're the pits of the world!
Thanks Dusty, I know lots of Irish people I could send this update to but I need to find a way to inform them without annoying them or they’ll just delete it…..which has happened before. Good luck Countess.
It’s disgraceful that Kemi Badenoch has had to provide the Equalities Committee with such basic, freely available information. We’ve all known these things for years now. Nokes and her sidekick are 🙈and 🙉. They should be replaced with people whose minds are open to the evidence. It’s people like this, across society, in the MSM, in the NHS , in positions of power etc who are directly responsible for GI being allowed to spread unchallenged to the point where it is now proving impossible to remove quickly.
I never noticed Hancock wearing that badge. He deserved his comeuppance then. 😄
Bette Davis made a lot of films featuring a wicked woman, sometimes she reformed, eg. Jezebel. One she played both, twins wicked and good.