Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 09, 2018, 08:07:49 AM
-
Apparently because of withdrawal of funding because they concentrate too much on supporting women.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16405729.glasgow-rape-crisis-has-been-forced-to-close-waiting-list-for-face-to-face-support/
-
The closure of such things .....would it have happened under Labour?
I will never understand how a nation that had so comprehensively rid itself of the Tory blight invited them back.
-
The closure of such things .....would it have happened under Labour?
I will never understand how a nation that had so comprehensively rid itself of the Tory blight invited them back.
It would appear you haven't read the story. It isn't govt funding, and the reason funding was withdrawn is the sort of nonsense the Labour Party is pushing with its idea women/trans are the same.
-
It would appear you haven't read the story. It isn't govt funding, and the reason funding was withdrawn is the sort of nonsense the Labour Party is pushing with its idea women/trans are the same.
Oh, er, well......ooh look ...a bee.
-
Staggering decision.
-
Staggering decision.
Apparently not the first such decision. One for men in abusive relationships also has same issue.
As an aside, you can now become a Mason if you are male, male when joined but transitioned to be female, female but transitioned to be male - but not if you are female. The whole gender/sexuality thing is currently fucked up.
-
Apparently because of withdrawal of funding because they concentrate too much on supporting women.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16405729.glasgow-rape-crisis-has-been-forced-to-close-waiting-list-for-face-to-face-support/
Not saying I agree with the decision, but it is rather disingenuous to suggest that they concentrate too much on supporting women, which by implication suggests that they also support men, albeit to a limited extent.
Reading the article it is clear that they provide services exclusively for women and girls whether cis or trans. They don't provide a service to men at all.
-
Not saying I agree with the decision, but it is rather disingenuous to suggest that they concentrate too much on supporting women, which by implication suggests that they also support men, albeit to a limited extent.
Reading the article it is clear that they provide services exclusively for women and girls whether cis or trans. They don't provide a service to men at all.
So what? Are you honestly saying that the withdrawing of funding here with the impact that will have is in any way justified?
-
Apparently not the first such decision. One for men in abusive relationships also has same issue.
As an aside, you can now become a Mason if you are male, male when joined but transitioned to be female, female but transitioned to be male - but not if you are female. The whole gender/sexuality thing is currently fucked up.
Freemasons aside, it's also a way of dividing us off from each other.
Disturbing lack of empathy going on here. No woman wants to go into a rape crisis centre and find a man sitting in the waiting area with her and many wouldn't be able to cope with it. Likewise why should a man traumatised by domestic violence have to do the same?
Let's just shit on human beings in the name of equality so that nobody can get the services that help them. Wankers.
-
So what? Are you honestly saying that the withdrawing of funding here with the impact that will have is in any way justified?
I was very clear that I wasn't making a comment about the decision, but I think there is a need to be clear - it isn't the case that they concentrate too much on supporting women, they actually only support women.
Presumably the funder is mindful of its equality obligations and wants to support organisations that provide services that aren't provided exclusively to one gender. It isn't uncommon for funders to use the power they have to provide or not to provide funding as a means to engender culture change in organisations hoping to receive funding.
-
I was very clear that I wasn't making a comment about the decision, but I think there is a need to be clear - it isn't the case that they concentrate too much on supporting women, they actually only support women.
Presumably the funder is mindful of its equality obligations and wants to support organisations that provide services that aren't provided exclusively to one gender. It isn't uncommon for funders to use the power they have to provide or not to provide funding as a means to engender culture change in organisations hoping to receive funding.
This is exactly the sort of tripe that puts people in danger. For once in my life, I am going to use the trope that your posting supports PC gone mad. Do you not get why it is entirely justifiable for this to be almost completely concentrated in women?
-
Disturbing lack of empathy going on here. No woman wants to go into a rape crisis centre and find a man sitting in the waiting area with her and many wouldn't be able to cope with it. Likewise why should a man traumatised by domestic violence have to do the same?
I don't disagree, but that is an operational matter. There is no reason why an organisation cannot provide rape services for both men and women, but to organise itself in a manner that prioritises the dignity of the individual and certainly avoids the situation where a female victim of rape is expected to sit next to a man (albeit presumably a male rape victim) in a waiting area.
-
Do you not get why it is entirely justifiable for this to be almost completely concentrated in women?
Of course I do as 90% of rape victims are women - but not 100%. And actually we should be thinking about the rape victim as an individual rather than on their proportional victim likelihood in the population. The trauma associated with an individual male victim of rape is, intrinsically no greater or lesser than that associated with an individual female victim of rape. We need support for all victims or rape, whether male or female, but of course we need to ensure that the capacity of support is reflective of the 90:10 ratio between gender of victims.
-
I don't disagree, but that is an operational matter. There is no reason why an organisation cannot provide rape services for both men and women, but to organise itself in a manner that prioritises the dignity of the individual and certainly avoids the situation where a female victim of rape is expected to sit next to a man (albeit presumably a male rape victim) in a waiting area.
No, it isn't. So you now want a rape crisis centre for women to find the resources for men-only areas or close off to women at certain times? This isn't gender-neutral toilets we are talking about here. Do you think that refuges should have men-only floors? These organisations are stretched so thin as it is, and now one os closing because of 'equality' measures that just shot all over vulnerable, traumatised and scared people. There are rape crisis organisations for men, and likewise ones for domestic violence; the thing to do it to support both kinds, giving both genders that safe space that is so badly needed.
This is ideology bordering on fanaticism on the part of CiN.
-
Of course I do as 90% of rape victims are women - but not 100%. And actually we should be thinking about the rape victim as an individual rather than on their proportional victim likelihood in the population. The trauma associated with an individual male victim of rape is, intrinsically no greater or lesser than that associated with an individual female victim of rape. We need support for all victims or rape, whether male or female, but of course we need to ensure that the capacity of support is reflective of the 90:10 ratio between gender of victims.
So men need safe spaces too. Not invade those that exist for women.
-
No, it isn't. So you now want a rape crisis centre for women to find the resources for men-only areas or close off to women at certain times? This isn't gender-neutral toilets we are talking about here. Do you think that refuges should have men-only floors? These organisations are stretched so thin as it is, and now one os closing because of 'equality' measures that just shot all over vulnerable, traumatised and scared people. There are rape crisis organisations for men, and likewise ones for domestic violence; the thing to do it to support both kinds, giving both genders that safe space that is so badly needed.
This is ideology bordering on fanaticism on the part of CiN.
Do you think that it is just as important to provide support service for individual male rape victims as individual female rape victims, while, of course recognising that 90% of rape victims are female.
-
Of course I do as 90% of rape victims are women - but not 100%. And actually we should be thinking about the rape victim as an individual rather than on their proportional victim likelihood in the population. The trauma associated with an individual male victim of rape is, intrinsically no greater or lesser than that associated with an individual female victim of rape. We need support for all victims or rape, whether male or female, but of course we need to ensure that the capacity of support is reflective of the 90:10 ratio between gender of victims.
Holy strawman , Batman! No one is saying male rape isn't traumatic.
-
Do you think that it is just as important to provide support service for individual male rape victims as individual female rape victims, while, of course recognising that 90% of rape victims are female.
Why didn't you even begin to address the points that Rhiannon made, and ignore that she said that male rape is as traumatic?
-
Do you think that it is just as important to provide support service for individual male rape victims as individual female rape victims, while, of course recognising that 90% of rape victims are female.
The clue might be in my post #14.
-
CiN are denying that it is anything to do with gender, although they aren't being forthcoming on what the reason actually is. Note, this is specifically a project funding a support worker for rape victims under the age of 18 (ie. children), and school outreach, that they have taken funding from.
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/victims-desperate-for-counselling-15003732
-
In one way, I hope that CIN are correct here. In which case it's up to others to pony up. That people even think that it might be appropriate in any way to justify funding in this manner, is deeply shocking to me.
-
The clue might be in my post #14.
Good to hear - our posts (14 and 15) so you'd answered my question before I'd asked it!
-
Good to hear - our posts (14 and 15) so you'd answered my question before I'd asked it!
So you didn't read the post #14, when you replied to it in #15?
-
So you didn't read the post #14, when you replied to it in #15?
No - post 15 was in reply to post 13. I got the 'a new post has been submitted' thing as I was posting reply 15 (which was presumably your post 14) - I tend not to scrap a post to check out all new post.
Anyhow, as I've said you have clearly answered my question in post 15 - thanks.
-
No - post 15 was in reply to post 13. I got the 'a new post has been submitted' thing as I was posting reply 15 (which was presumably your post 14) - I tend not to scrap a post to check out all new post.
Anyhow, as I've said you have clearly answered my question in post 15 - thanks.
You are very confused. I didn't answer your question. Rhiannon did. But she already had in #13 in writing
'There are rape crisis organisations for men, and likewise ones for domestic violence; the thing to do it to support both kinds, giving both genders that safe space that is so badly needed.'
And to move on, do you think that making a funding decision on the basis of a women's rape crisis centre not doing enough for men, if that is the case, is in any way justifiable?
-
Good to hear - our posts (14 and 15) so you'd answered my question before I'd asked it!
Must admit I'm a bit surprised that you even felt the need to ask.
-
Must admit I'm a bit surprised that you even felt the need to ask.
Especially given you had already answered it in the post Prof D replied to when you write
'There are rape crisis organisations for men, and likewise ones for domestic violence; the thing to do it to support both kinds, giving both genders that safe space that is so badly needed.'
-
Especially given you had already answered it in the post Prof D replied to when you write
'There are rape crisis organisations for men, and likewise ones for domestic violence; the thing to do it to support both kinds, giving both genders that safe space that is so badly needed.'
That and the fact I'm a normal human being.
-
That and the fact I'm a normal human being.
And yet you post here!
-
As an aside, you can now become a Mason if you are male, male when joined but transitioned to be female, female but transitioned to be male - but not if you are female. The whole gender/sexuality thing is currently fucked up.
Actually there is a whole masonic organisation just for women. I have no idea if they are accepting trans women.
-
Presumably the funder is mindful of its equality obligations and wants to support organisations that provide services that aren't provided exclusively to one gender. It isn't uncommon for funders to use the power they have to provide or not to provide funding as a means to engender culture change in organisations hoping to receive funding.
Well the reasonable compromise would be to also provide support for an organisation for sexually abused men and boys.
-
Well the reasonable compromise would be to also provide support for an organisation for sexually abused men and boys.
Or to provide funding to an organisation (of which there are many) that provides rape support services regardless of gender. Actually we don't have anything like enough information to know. Perhaps the loss of funding for this organisation was balanced by increased funding for other gender specific rape support organisation, or maybe for ones that support regardless of gender. Perhaps CinN funding priorities have changed so greater funding is being used to alleviate poverty with reduced funding for rape support. We don't know.
Available charity funds are limited and those funding bodies are constantly taking really tough decisions where eminently worthy and fundable projects aren't actually funded through lack of available funds.
-
Disturbing lack of empathy going on here. No woman wants to go into a rape crisis centre and find a man sitting in the waiting area with her and many wouldn't be able to cope with it.
What about sharing a waiting area with a trans woman? I was recently doing some volunteer work and one of the other volunteers was a trans woman although her biology was very obviously male and she was about six foot two. What if she had been in the waiting area?
-
And yet you post here!
Shit, it's such a giveaway...
-
And to move on, do you think that making a funding decision on the basis of a women's rape crisis centre not doing enough for men, if that is the case, is in any way justifiable?
It depends on the circumstances and the competing applications for funding. Imagine a situation where a funding body considering two applications for funding for rape support and outreach projects, one aimed entirely at women, while the other provided support for both men and women with insufficient funds to fund both. It wouldn't be unreasonable at all to decide to fund the project that supported both men and women, both from an equalities perspective, but also as it would have broader impact.
That doesn't mean that the gender specific application isn't worthy, nor unfundable, merely that another competing project was seen as higher priority for funding.
-
What about sharing a waiting area with a trans woman? I was recently doing some volunteer work and one of the other volunteers was a trans woman although her biology was very obviously male and she was about six foot two. What if she had been in the waiting area?
I don't know. I'm not qualified in rape counselling and I suggest that it's down to the centres themselves to decide what to do in such circumstances. I guess some victims would be fine with it, others not. FWIW there has been some controversy in the neopagan movement over some women's events not admitting trans women because so many women have been raped and these events are designed to be a safe space for women to talk about their experiences. I can see both sides of the argument but personally I don't feel comfortable with the exclusion of trans women.
-
I'll post the statement from Children in Need that was in Rhiannon's link.
We have been pleased to fund Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis since 2012. Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis’ three-year grant recently came to the end of its term, and their subsequent application for new funding was unsuccessful. This decision was in no way connected to the support of male victims, we award grants to charities regardless of gender.
Their side of the story is that the funding came to its expected end. The organisation applied for new funding and were unsuccessful for reasons unspecified but nothing to do with gender.
-
That doesn't mean that the gender specific application isn't worthy, nor unfundable, merely that another competing project was seen as higher priority for funding.
Which also means that the decision has been made that young rape victims, some suicidal, aren't worth helping and, potentially, keeping alive. Because let's not pretend that the NHS will fill the gap.
-
I'll post the statement from Children in Need that was in Rhiannon's link.
Their side of the story is that the funding came to its expected end. The organisation applied for new funding and were unsuccessful for reasons unspecified but nothing to do with gender.
Which may be a lie in order to stave off bad publicity. Or not. We've now got into 'we said, they said'. I think that CiN have more to gain by lying than Rape Crisis, who don't have much to gain at all from what I can see.
-
Which also means that the decision has been made that young rape victims, some suicidal, aren't worth helping and, potentially, keeping alive. Because let's not pretend that the NHS will fill the gap.
Not necessarily if there is funding agreed to a different project also supporting rape victims that was deemed to be better and higher priority.
But funding is limited and finite - no doubt CinN receive applications for funding way in excess of the available funds. It has to prioritise and make decisions and many of those will be extremely tough decisions with highly worthy applications ending up below the funding line. And yes where those decisions mean that an organisation isn't funded it will have a negative effect, just as there is an opposite effect when the decision is positive.
That doesn't mean that rape victims aren't worth helping, but it may mean that CinN has determined that another application will have more impact in helping them. Or that an application supporting severely disabled children, or children facing poverty, or children who are young-carers, or an application to support a project aimed at preventing child suicide etc etc etc is higher priority for their limited available funds.
-
Which may be a lie in order to stave off bad publicity. Or not. We've now got into 'we said, they said'.
Well I expect the first part "Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis’ three-year grant recently came to the end of its term, and their subsequent application for new funding was unsuccessful" is almost certainly true. It would be easy to verify one way or the other.
I think that CiN have more to gain by lying than Rape Crisis, who don't have much to gain at all from what I can see.
Really? This is portrayed as an existential threat for Rape Crisis in both the posted stories. They have a lot to gain if they can "shame" Children in Need to reverse their decision, or through this publicity, gain funding from elsewhere. Children in Need as an organisation has nothing to gain from this that I can see. However, individuals within Children in Need may be lying to avoid getting fired.
I think the only way to find out whose story is true is for Children in Need to publish the documentation concerning their funding decision.
-
I think the only way to find out whose story is true is for Children in Need to publish the documentation concerning their funding decision.
I agree with this.
-
Really? This is portrayed as an existential threat for Rape Crisis in both the posted stories.
That certainly isn't true - the loss of the grant of about £45k per year, represent approx. 7.5% of their annual income of about £600k.
Also worth noting that their £135,322 grant was the second largest of any grant award in Scotland that year (the largest being just £1000 more), so CiN have certainly funded them generously. Given that most grants are way, way smaller a consideration might have been that CiN could fund 3-4 other (hugely worthy) projects for the cost of continuing to fund Rape Crisis. CiN will also (as per their funding rules) have expected Rape Crisis to 'provide convincing evidence of the differences our grant has made to the lives of the disadvantaged children and young people you have worked with' in order to be able to apply for further funding. It may be that CiN were not convinced of the impact of their previous funding.
-
It appears that the whole issue is now over.
The Scottish Government has agreed to increase its funding for Glasgow Rape Crisis by £35k (on top of the £218k a year it already provides) to cover the shortfall due to failing in their funding application to CiN. Apparently they've also raised an additional £10k in donations in the last few hours on the back of the publicity.
So overall a good day's work for Glasgow Rape Crisis and certainly shows the power of the media.
-
That certainly isn't true - the loss of the grant of about £45k per year, represent approx. 7.5% of their annual income of about £600k.
Also worth noting that their £135,322 grant was the second largest of any grant award in Scotland that year (the largest being just £1000 more), so CiN have certainly funded them generously. Given that most grants are way, way smaller a consideration might have been that CiN could fund 3-4 other (hugely worthy) projects for the cost of continuing to fund Rape Crisis. CiN will also (as per their funding rules) have expected Rape Crisis to 'provide convincing evidence of the differences our grant has made to the lives of the disadvantaged children and young people you have worked with' in order to be able to apply for further funding. It may be that CiN were not convinced of the impact of their previous funding.
7.5% can be make or break and they were saying they were going to be laying people off and suspending services as a result,
The point is that the assertion that “they have nothing to gain” is refuted. They have plenty to gain and indeed have gained as a result of this, if your latest post is correct.
-
It appears that the whole issue is now over.
The Scottish Government has agreed to increase its funding for Glasgow Rape Crisis by £35k (on top of the £218k a year it already provides) to cover the shortfall due to failing in their funding application to CiN. Apparently they've also raised an additional £10k in donations in the last few hours on the back of the publicity.
So overall a good day's work for Glasgow Rape Crisis and certainly shows the power of the media.
Any chance of you condemning the idea that funding should be based on the idea of supporting women?
-
7.5% can be make or break and they were saying they were going to be laying people off and suspending services as a result,
The point is that the assertion that “they have nothing to gain” is refuted. They have plenty to gain and indeed have gained as a result of this, if your latest post is correct.
'Nothing to gain' by doing what?
-
'Nothing to gain' by doing what?
My mistake, I should have said “less to gain than CiN”
-
My mistake, I should have said “less to gain than CiN”
Do you mean 'less to gain by lying'? Because there's no evidence that the reason that they have given for losing funding from CiN is what prompted the funding to be found by the Scottish government, only that the Govt have stepped in to replace the funding lost in order to save a vital service. As for the people who have donated... that's up to each individual.
-
My mistake, I should have said “less to gain than CiN”
odd idea about charity.
-
7.5% can be make or break and they were saying they were going to be laying people off and suspending services as a result
I disagree and in order to understand you need to understand the world of charity grant funding (which I do in the different context of medical research).
A CiN grant is funding to do a particular project - it comes with no overheads, so no contribution to your rent, business rates, electricity, gas etc etc etc. So if you fail to have a grant renewed, effectively you can do less - that project which would have been funded cannot now go ahead. And that would have been the case here, except for the 11th hour reprieve from the Scottish government. It would also have meant that one member of staff's role would have been redundant, but as this person would have been on grant funding he or she would have been on a fixed term contract anyhow aligned to the funding period.
But it isn't in any way an existential threat in the manner that a 7.5% reduction in income might be in a private company, specifically because the grant cannot pay for fixed costs. Bizarrely getting grants of this nature actually makes the fundamental financial situation of an organisation worse - as the grant covers only 'direct costs', but overhead costs (HR costs, payroll, services, estates costs, IT costs actually increase as you have more activity, and this increase in overheads has to be covered from other sources.
Now of course the 'mission' of an organisation, whether a rape support charity or a medical research organisation, means that we wants grants to allow us to do more 'stuff', but actually in financial terms, certainly in the short term, you'd be better off not winning that grant.
Had the Glasgow Rape Crisis not been bailed out by the Scottish government, they'd have made one person redundant, they'd have been able to do less (specifically what that grant application said they would have done), but there would be no existential threat - they'd still have been able to pay the rent, keep the lights on etc because the grant wouldn't provide any contribution to those things.
-
I disagree and in order to understand you need to understand the world of charity grant funding (which I do in the different context of medical research).
A CiN grant is funding to do a particular project - it comes with no overheads, so no contribution to your rent, business rates, electricity, gas etc etc etc. So if you fail to have a grant renewed, effectively you can do less - that project which would have been funded cannot now go ahead. And that would have been the case here, except for the 11th hour reprieve from the Scottish government. It would also have meant that one member of staff's role would have been redundant, but as this person would have been on grant funding he or she would have been on a fixed term contract anyhow aligned to the funding period.
But it isn't in any way an existential threat in the manner that a 7.5% reduction in income might be in a private company, specifically because the grant cannot pay for fixed costs. Bizarrely getting grants of this nature actually makes the fundamental financial situation of an organisation worse - as the grant covers only 'direct costs', but overhead costs (HR costs, payroll, services, estates costs, IT costs actually increase as you have more activity, and this increase in overheads has to be covered from other sources.
Now of course the 'mission' of an organisation, whether a rape support charity or a medical research organisation, means that we wants grants to allow us to do more 'stuff', but actually in financial terms, certainly in the short term, you'd be better off not winning that grant.
Had the Glasgow Rape Crisis not been bailed out by the Scottish government, they'd have made one person redundant, they'd have been able to do less (specifically what that grant application said they would have done), but there would be no existential threat - they'd still have been able to pay the rent, keep the lights on etc because the grant wouldn't provide any contribution to those things.
Any chance of you condemning the idea that funding should be based on the idea of supporting women
-
Any chance of you condemning the idea that funding should be based on the idea of supporting women?
Why would I do that as I have never said that funding shouldn't go to projects focussed on supporting one gender only.
What I have said is that in the world of grant applications where it is not unusual to receive applications for five or more times as much funding as the total amount you have to give out, then that funding body needs to prioritise projects. And that firstly means that excellent projects might not get funded, as there are simply too many applications ranked even better. And also that it is perfectly legitimate for a funding body to take into account the breadth of people who they can support with funding. And this is particularly relevant to CiN, who remember have a mission to support children and the breadth of applications they receive must be vast. Finally Glasgow Rape support demonstrably pitched into the most competitive part of the CiN funding as their bids were at the very highest end of grants that CiN would support. CiN are clear about this on the information for grant applications:
'-Our Main Grants Programme is for grants over £10,000 per year to support projects for up to three years.
-There is no upper limit for Main Grants but we make very few grants over £120,000 (or £40,000 per year) and most grants are for much less.
-Each year we are asked for much more money than we are able to give. Requests for larger amounts are always more competitive.'
They were successful in 2012 and 2015 (in the latter round receiving the second highest grant awarded in Scotland) - presumably in 2018 they simply came up against more compelling applications which were ranked higher. That's how grant funding works - if I had £1 for every time I've received a negative response to a grant where I was told that my application was rated excellent, was clearly fundable but that due to restrictions in funding envelope on this occasion there were other more compelling grants ranked higher so no funding - well I'd be rich, or at least would be able to buy you all a round of drinks.
And also lets knock on the head this notion that their funding was cut - no it wasn't. They applied for funding for 3 years in 2015, were funded and received that full 3-year funding. But that provides not guarantee that further funding applications would be successful. They applied again in 2018 and were not successful. They didn't have their funding cut, they simply had a new application which wasn't successful.
-
Any chance of you condemning the idea that funding should be based on the idea of supporting women
See my last post.
-
See my last post.
Which doesn't condemn that.
-
Which doesn't condemn that.
And what makes you think I should NS, given that I have never stated nor implied as such.
Read what I wrote which is clear on the matter. I have never said that funding shouldn't be given to projects that focus on one gender only. However that doesn't equate to thinking that once a fixed-term grant has ended that a new application for another grant must be automatically approved. That isn't the case. A new grant needs to be assessed against the other grant applications received at that round and the funding body will have to determine a priority ranking for those grants and then determine where the cut off line for funding lies given that the level of application will be many times the amount of money available.
The Glasgow Rape Crisis organisation was successful in 2012 for a 3 year grant, which was at the top end of value that CiN fund. They were successful again in 2015 - against right at the top end for a 3 year grant. They applied again in 2018 and this time weren't successful as CiN clearly determined that there were more compelling (and therefore higher ranked) applications and therefore their grant ended up blow the funding line. That's how grant funding works.
Out of interest NS - have you ever applied for a grant from a competitive grant funding body?
-
You can't liken giving a grant for a rape crisis service to medical research. This project funded a key worker to work with young women who have been raped and some of whom are suicidal. This kind of project doesn't come to an 'end'. By refusing to fund it further these women are left high and dry without their support and new victims can't even begin to access that support. In order to keep funding the service cuts have to be made elsewhere. I have experience of something similar personally and it is pretty inhumane to do this to the victims here.
-
And what makes you think I should NS, given that I have never stated nor implied as such.
Read what I wrote which is clear on the matter. I have never said that funding shouldn't be given to projects that focus on one gender only. However that doesn't equate to thinking that once a fixed-term grant has ended that a new application for another grant must be automatically approved. That isn't the case. A new grant needs to be assessed against the other grant applications received at that round and the funding body will have to determine a priority ranking for those grants and then determine where the cut off line for funding lies given that the level of application will be many times the amount of money available.
The Glasgow Rape Crisis organisation was successful in 2012 for a 3 year grant, which was at the top end of value that CiN fund. They were successful again in 2015 - against right at the top end for a 3 year grant. They applied again in 2018 and this time weren't successful as CiN clearly determined that there were more compelling (and therefore higher ranked) applications and therefore their grant ended up blow the funding line. That's how grant funding works.
Out of interest NS - have you ever applied for a grant from a competitive grant funding body?
What relevance is anything so have done to you supporting the withdrawal of funding to a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men?
-
You can't liken giving a grant for a rape crisis service to medical research. This project funded a key worker to work with young women who have been raped and some of whom are suicidal. This kind of project doesn't come to an 'end'. By refusing to fund it further these women are left high and dry without their support and new victims can't even begin to access that support. In order to keep funding the service cuts have to be made elsewhere. I have experience of something similar personally and it is pretty inhumane to do this to the victims here.
In which case funding for these services must be provided via different routes. That being the case the focus of criticism should be the public purse for failing to fund essential public services, rather than a charity doing their best to fund as much as they can, knowing that they cannot fund all they'd wish to.
But while it is funded via charitable grant funding, those funding bodies will need to prioritise the applications they receive, in order to determine which ones they can fund within the funds available. That will likely mean that many incredibly important projects cannot be funded, but the charity cannot simply create more money to fund more projects, as much as I'm sure they'd love to.
And don't forget that much of this funding was for outreach projects, running workshops in schools - clearly really important, but not the sort of emergency type service you are implying.
Now I know you might not like this - but funding a project for 3 years provides no obligation, nor should raise any expectation that a new application will also be funded, as each new application has to be assessed against other competing project applications received for that funding round. We don't know what projects were deemed more compelling than this one, but I suspect that they will have been at least equally compelling and that the decision to fund them rather than Glasgow Rape Crisis wont have been taken likely by the panel charged with making those decisions.
-
Leaving aside the brilliantly patronising tone (again), the human cost is totally escaping you, isn’t it?
-
What relevance is anything so have done to you supporting the withdrawal of funding to a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men?
Firstly CiN have clearly stated that their funding decision has nothing to do with Glasgow Rape Crisis not doing enough for men.
Secondly, of course, their funding hasn't been removed - they applied for a 3-year grant in 2015, was successful and received the full funding of that grant. They applied again in 2018 and were unsuccessful. Their funding from 2018 onwards wasn't withdrawn as it was never approved in the first place.
If gaining funding from an organisation and then being unsuccessful in a new application to the same organisation equates to removal of funding, then I've had funding removed from the EPSRC, BBSRC, BHF, Action Medical Research, HFSP, EU, Dunhill Medical Trust, Wellcome Trust etc etc.
-
Leaving aside the brilliantly patronising tone (again), the human cost is totally escaping you, isn’t it?
No it isn't - in that presumably the grants funded in their 2018 round will be making a huge difference to other children. That's the issue - fund this project and help these children experiencing (or may experience) rape in Glasgow or fund other projects that CiN determined to be more compelling that help other children with huge human effects. The problem is that with limited funding you cannot fund everything you would want to, so fund other projects and there is a human cost here, fund this project and there is a human cost elsewhere.
-
Firstly CiN have clearly stated that their funding decision has nothing to do with Glasgow Rape Crisis not doing enough for men.
Secondly, of course, their funding hasn't been removed - they applied for a 3-year grant in 2015, was successful and received the full funding of that grant. They applied again in 2018 and were unsuccessful. Their funding from 2018 onwards wasn't withdrawn as it was never approved in the first place.
If gaining funding from an organisation and then being unsuccessful in a new application to the same organisation equates to removal of funding, then I've had funding removed from the EPSRC, BBSRC, BHF, Action Medical Research, HFSP, EU, Dunhill Medical Trust, Wellcome Trust etc etc.
And again you support the withdrawing of funding for a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men.
-
And again you support the withdrawing of funding for a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men.
Is it your particular opus operandus to read a post and conclude the exact opposite of what is written.
For the avoidance of doubt I have not supported the withdrawing of funding for a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men because:
1. They haven't had funding withdrawn
2. The reason that their new application for funding was unsuccessful (according to the funding body) has nothing to do with their not doing enough to support men.
And for the record, I'm basically with Rhiannon on this one, in that these types of services should be left to the vagaries and limited funds available from charity sources - they should be part of core service provision, provided from the public purse.
-
Is it your particular opus operandus to read a post and conclude the exact opposite of what is written.
For the avoidance of doubt I have not supported the withdrawing of funding for a women's rape crisis centre because it doesn't do enough for men because:
1. They haven't had funding withdrawn
2. The reason that their new application for funding was unsuccessful (according to the funding body) has nothing to do with their not doing enough to support men.
And for the record, I'm basically with Rhiannon on this one, in that these types of services should be left to the vagaries and limited funds available from charity sources - they should be part of core service provision, provided from the public purse.
No. I asked you to condemn the idea of a women's rape crisis centre having funding refused because it didn't do enough for men, multiple times. You haven't condemned the idea, so it seems logical to think you support it!
And BTW the centre think they have been refused funding because they don't do enough for men. So nice to know that you have decided they are lying.
-
No. I asked you to condemn the idea of a women's rape crisis centre having funding refused because it didn't do enough for men, multiple times. You haven't condemned the idea, so it seems logical to think you support it!
I think I nailed that one back in reply 52:
'I have never said that funding shouldn't go to projects focussed on supporting one gender only.'
Move on.
-
I think I nailed that one back in reply 52:
'I have never said that funding shouldn't go to projects focussed on supporting one gender only.'
Move on.
Nope, because that's just equivocation and isn't condemning the idea.
-
And BTW the centre think they have been refused funding because they don't do enough for men. So nice to know that you have decided they are lying.
And CiN have put out a statement indicating that they didn't. I suggest you take it up with them to determine which is the case, noting that CiN will have provided a summary for the reasons for their decision in their outcome letter to the centre, as per their funding procedures.
-
And CiN have put out a statement indicating that they didn't. I suggest you take it up with them to determine which is the case, noting that CiN will have provided a summary for the reasons for their decision in their outcome letter to the centre, as per their funding procedures.
And you in accepting it are calling the rape crisis centre who disagree liars.
-
Nope, because that's just equivocation and isn't condemning the idea.
The idea of what? Something actually related to the case we are discussing, or a hypothetical case where funding was withdrawn from an organisation because it didn't do enough for men (which isn't the case here).
So lets deal with the hypothetical case - lets imagine a situation where a rape support organisation received a 3 year grant, in which they clearly stated that their project was exclusively focussed on women and was funded on that basis, and had that withdrawn after one year by the funder determined because it didn't do enough for men (which they'd never claimed it would). Would I condemn that funding body - damn right I would. But that is nothing like the actual case here.
-
And you in accepting it are calling the rape crisis centre who disagree liars.
Are you calling CiN liars? Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request to see the letter would sort it out once and for all.
-
Are you calling CiN liars? Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request to see the letter would sort it out once and for all.
No, I'm not but you are calling the rape crisis centre liars and refusing to condemn funding in the basis of what a women's rape crisis centre might do for men.
-
The idea of what? Something actually related to the case we are discussing, or a hypothetical case where funding was withdrawn from an organisation because it didn't do enough for men (which isn't the case here).
So lets deal with the hypothetical case - lets imagine a situation where a rape support organisation received a 3 year grant, in which they clearly stated that their project was exclusively focussed on women and was funded on that basis, and had that withdrawn after one year by the funder determined because it didn't do enough for men (which they'd never claimed it would). Would I condemn that funding body - damn right I would. But that is nothing like the actual case here.
That's all you were being asked. Thank you for saying it.
-
No, I'm not but you are calling the rape crisis centre liars and refusing to condemn funding in the basis of what a women's rape crisis centre might do for men.
Nor I am, any more that you are calling the CiN liars.
Bottom line - the CiN received huge numbers of applications for funding against limited resources, which are massively insufficient to fund all the project it might want to support if funding wasn't limited. The Centre applied at a level that was at the very highest end of what CiN would ever support, and therefore in the most competitive part of the funding scheme, presumably because they'd been successful twice before. Prior success is no guarantee (and should provide no expectation) of future success and this time they weren't successful.
Maybe CiN received more compelling applications at the £120k+ level and therefore the Centre fell foul. Perhaps they decided that their precious resources were better spent on a number of smaller grants that CiN determined in sum provided greater beneficial impact on children than the Centre's bid.
Sadly this is what happens when we rely on charitable funding for what should perhaps be essential public services and where the funding within that charitable envelope is both limited and unpredictable. Step forward one David Cameron and his Big Society notion which effectively outsourced core public services to charitable and third sector provision.
-
Nor I am, any more that you are calling the CiN liars.
Bottom line - the CiN received huge numbers of applications for funding against limited resources, which are massively insufficient to fund all the project it might want to support if funding wasn't limited. The Centre applied at a level that was at the very highest end of what CiN would ever support, and therefore in the most competitive part of the funding scheme, presumably because they'd been successful twice before. Prior success is not guarantee (and should provide no expectation) of future success and this time they weren't successful.
Maybe CiN received more compelling applications at the £120k+ level and therefore the Centre fell foul. Perhaps they decided that their precious resources were better spent on a number of smaller grants that CiN determined in sum provided greater beneficial impact on children than the Centre's bid.
Sadly this is what happens when we rely on charitable funding for what should perhaps be essential public services and where the funding within that charitable envelope is both limited and unpredictable. Step forward one David Cameron and his Big Society notion which effectively outsourced core public services to charitable and third sector provision.
And again wrong, I wasn't taking a position, you were.
-
And again wrong, I wasn't taking a position, you were.
Taking a posiiton on what?
You have reiterated numerous times a view that the Centre had their funding withdrawn (itself clearly not true) because they didn't do enough for men - the latter refuted by CiN. I struggle to see how this is not 'taking a position'.
All I am trying to do is get you to realise the challenges of making decisions on funding applications where the application value massively outstrips the available funding, and indeed where the value of excellent funding applications still way outstrips the available funding.
Now my experience is in medical research, where the 'human cost' (as Rhiannon would have it) is not immediate on the basis that funding applications may lead to new treatments in years or decades that could save lives or massively increase quality of life. But whenever I've been on a panel making those funding decisions I have never failed to wish we could have funded a few more projects, as many excellent and clearly fundable projects ended up unfunded due to lack of resources.
-
Taking a posiiton on what?
You have reiterated numerous times a view that the Centre had their funding withdrawn (itself clearly not true) because they didn't do enough for men - the latter refuted by CiN. I struggle to see how this is not 'taking a position'.
All I am trying to do is get you to realise the challenges of making decisions on funding applications where the application value massively outstrips the available funding, and indeed where the value of excellent funding applications still way outstrips the available funding.
Now my experience is in medical research, where the 'human cost' (as Rhiannon would have it) is not immediate on the basis that funding applications may lead to new treatments in years or decades that could save lives or massively increase quality of life. But whenever I've been on a panel making those funding decisions I have never failed to wish we could have funded a few more projects, as many excellent and clearly fundable projects ended up unfunded due to lack of resources.
Stop lying
-
You can't liken giving a grant for a rape crisis service to medical research. This project funded a key worker to work with young women who have been raped and some of whom are suicidal. This kind of project doesn't come to an 'end'. By refusing to fund it further these women are left high and dry without their support and new victims can't even begin to access that support. In order to keep funding the service cuts have to be made elsewhere. I have experience of something similar personally and it is pretty inhumane to do this to the victims here.
Setting aside that much of the project funding was for outreach programme in schools, hence its relevance to CiN, let's deal with your point head on.
You make an absolutely compelling case for services of the type you describe to part of core provision funding from the public purse and I'd agree with you 100%. Sadly David Cameron's Big Society initiative was based on the premise that public funding could be reduced by offloading core public service provision onto the charitable/third sector. I've never agreed with this - charitable/third sector provision should extend but never replace core public services.
But once you enter the world where core public service provisions should be provided by the charitable/third sector, which has limited resources, you end up in a world where things we thing should be core public service provision are required to compete against each other for limited the charitable/third sector resource and not all can be funded.
So you might want the work proposed in the centre's application to be funded, and I wouldn't disagree. But that isn't the question - the question is whether you'd choose this application against another that you and I would also agree should be part of core public service provision. but where there isn't enough funding to support all the projects. So for example:
1. A project that supports young carers to allow them to have a childhood
2. A project that provides independence to severely disabled children
3. A project aimed at providing mental health support to the most severely children affected who may be considering suicide.
Or even:
4. A very similar project in another part of the country where this kind of support isn't embedded.
Now I'm glad I don't have to make key funding decisions between these types of application (mine are much more prosaic and less immediate), but I imagine the CiN funding panel members will be doing this all the time, and again sadly as you, I and no doubt they wish this wasn't the case and they could fund all if there were sufficient resources. But ultimately don't rail at CiN, rather get angry with governmental decisions to offload core service provision to the charitable/third sector which make these horrible decisions necessary.
-
Stop lying
About what? ???
-
This is the project's website:
https://www.roseyproject.co.uk/content/about/
It's clear that it's main purpose is one to one therapy for women under 18 (aka 'children') who have been the victims of sex crimes. Currently we are told that these number 20 young women, some of whom self harm, some who are suicidal.
The outreach project is secondary to that but if even one encounter with the outreach worker prevents sex crime then I don't think it can be argued with. Incidentally, the website makes clear its policy on LGBTI inclusivity.
My issue is that this project has been funded for two cycles. I can get the argument that if faced with three completely new projects, it may be necessary to priorities something that reaches a hundred kids rather than 20. But this project has been deemed worthy for six years now and it is very odd that suddenly it isn't. CiN have not given a firm reason for why they acted as they did.
-
It was a good enough project for CiN to feature in one of their 'please give us dosh' films.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p037s93j
-
This is the project's website:
https://www.roseyproject.co.uk/content/about/
It's clear that it's main purpose is one to one therapy for women under 18 (aka 'children') who have been the victims of sex crimes. Currently we are told that these number 20 young women, some of whom self harm, some who are suicidal.
The outreach project is secondary to that but if even one encounter with the outreach worker prevents sex crime then I don't think it can be argued with. Incidentally, the website makes clear its policy on LGBTI inclusivity.
My issue is that this project has been funded for two cycles. I can get the argument that if faced with three completely new projects, it may be necessary to priorities something that reaches a hundred kids rather than 20. But this project has been deemed worthy for six years now and it is very odd that suddenly it isn't. CiN have not given a firm reason for why they acted as they did.
Yes I'd already read this - the project is about both support and outreach into schools as I'd already pointed out. The project is also co-funded by another organisation, the R S MacDonald Charitable Trust - it is described as follows in the Centre own report to the charity commission in Scotland:
This project provides services to young people. Those services includes support and advocacy, and prevention workshops in youth projects and schools. Funding covers salary costs, travel costs, workshop costs and a contribution to the overheads of the project.
You or I have no idea about the balance between the support and workshop element of the application, but they will have had to have been clearly indicated in the application.
Regarding the issue of two full funding cycles - well firstly having been funded once provides no guarantee of a successful application, and a successful second application provides no guarantee of a third.
But there is a more significant point. Many funding bodies have a sustainability criteria as part of assessment - effectively how are you going to keep this going post-the funding period. The implication being that the applicant must 'ween' itself off long term funding from the funding body. The challenge here is that to get the first (and perhaps second) grant you need to provide a compelling argument as to how the project can be sustained without the CiN (in this case) funding in the medium term. The challenge being that providing a compelling case for sustainability provides a strong supporting argument for funding in the first or second grant. But if you don't deliver then it is negative. The very notion of reapplying for a third 3-year grant (which is a demonstration that you hadn't achieved the alternative funding) when you might have made a compelling case for medium term sustainability in a second or third stage application might be a deal breaker.
-
My issue is that this project has been funded for two cycles. I can get the argument that if faced with three completely new projects, it may be necessary to priorities something that reaches a hundred kids rather than 20. But this project has been deemed worthy for six years now and it is very odd that suddenly it isn't. CiN have not given a firm reason for why they acted as they did.
Each new round of application is different. It might be that CiN considered that other applications to the same level would deliver greater benefit to greater number of kids than this one, given (as always) the notion that given unlimited resources they'd like to fund all.
But unless you fund everything in perpetuity, and given finite resources, whenever you want to fund something new (as was the case for this centre in 2012) something else will fall off the funding. Hence the sustainability criteria that is fairly standard - the notion being that you pump prime projects that can maintain themselves in the medium term via other funding allowing a charity to fund new projects without jeopardising the existing project. This has proved to be the case here, albeit not in the managed manner you'd hope for.
-
But this project has been deemed worthy for six years now and it is very odd that suddenly it isn't.
I think you are missing the point - CiN are likely to determine, as a first stab, those projects that are fundable (in other words worthy of support) - but then the hard task starts - where you have £5M worth of projects but only a £1M budget how do you determined which £1M worth of project (all of which are worthy) and which £4M worth of project (all of which are worthy) you cannot support.
That you have been funded in two previous rounds isn't a compelling argument at all, firstly from the sustainability criteria, but also from the need to refresh your funding. It could be, of course, that one of the projects funded because this project wasn't was for rape/sexual abuse services for children in Cambridgeshire, where perhaps support is less developed than in Glasgow.
-
It was a good enough project for CiN to feature in one of their 'please give us dosh' films.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p037s93j
In November 2015, when they were funded rather than in 2018, where their application wasn't considered to be ranked high enough for funding.
It may be that the outcomes of their 2015 funding were great but there were other more compelling cases for the limited funded funding pot. It may be that the outcomes of their 2015 funding weren't considered to have the level of impact expect. I, and you, don't know.
-
I think you are missing the point - CiN are likely to determine, as a first stab, those projects that are fundable (in other words worthy of support) - but then the hard task starts - where you have £5M worth of projects but only a £1M budget how do you determined which £1M worth of project (all of which are worthy) and which £4M worth of project (all of which are worthy) you cannot support.
That you have been funded in two previous rounds isn't a compelling argument at all, firstly from the sustainability criteria, but also from the need to refresh your funding. It could be, of course, that one of the projects funded because this project wasn't was for rape/sexual abuse services for children in Cambridgeshire, where perhaps support is less developed than in Glasgow.
So because Cambs is close to me you throw that in. Nice. Should I care less about Scottish girls?
-
So because Cambs is close to me you throw that in. Nice. Should I care less about Scottish girls?
I have been following this discussion. Throughout, Prof D has been (very patiently) providing an objective description of the way in which grant awarding institutions behave. At no time has he made any comment about the circumstances of the present situation in Glasgow. He has simply described the process involved and the mechanism by which a particular funding decision may have reached. He has not been concerned with the merit of any decision merely the decision making itself.
Rhi and NS appear to be berating him because he has not not made any subjective comment which would agree with their own subjections. My own conclusion is that it is pointless being rational - you will only be attacked.
-
So because Cambs is close to me you throw that in. Nice. Should I care less about Scottish girls?
Or Cornwall.
Point being that continuing to fund this Centre simply because it was deemed worthy of funding in 2012 and 2015 means that £120k worth of projects cannot be funded elsewhere - or indeed even in Glasgow. Those alternative projects might have had more impact on children than this one - certainly CiN thought so which is why they were ranked higher.
Imagine if you were involved in one of those projects (let's say a rape support project aimed at children in Cornwall) and you were told you hadn't got funding but that a project ranked lower than yours had been for no other reason than they had two previous successful applications.
-
Or Cornwall.
Point being that continuing to fund this Centre simply because it was deemed worthy of funding in 2012 and 2015 means that £120k worth of projects cannot be funded elsewhere - or indeed even in Glasgow. Those alternative projects might have had more impact on children than this one - certainly CiN thought which is why they were ranked higher.
Imagine if you were involved in one of those projects (let's say a rape support project aimed at children in Cornwall) and you were told you hadn't got funding but that a project ranked lower than yours had been for no other reason than they had two previous successful applications.
Ranked how? By whom?
What I can tell you is that I know what it is like to lose a key worker through cuts, and it isn’t good. And I’m an adult with the inner and outer resources to at least get by. Goodness only knows how it is for these girls. Or was, until the funding was found.
-
Ranked how? By whom?
By the CiN funding panels - how on earth do you think funding bodies make decisions on which applications to fund?
-
By the CiN funding panels - how on earth do you think funding bodies make decisions on which applications to fund?
And the project in Cornwall would be told that the one in Glasgow is ‘lower ranked’? Otherwise your comment makes no sense.
I note you have decided not to comment on my personal experience. Why is that?
-
And the project in Cornwall would be told that the one in Glasgow is ‘lower ranked’? Otherwise your comment makes no sense.
The principal remains regardless of whether the ranked order is made public.
But yes it is extremely common (certain for public funding bodies) for the ranked order of applications to be made available - in the interests of openness and transparency.
-
Ok, if you want to be free to be out there with your experience of awarding funding but won’t acknowledge my experience as a service user in this discussion then I don’t think there’s a great deal of point in continuing. It’s not secret, it’s not something I find difficult to talk about and I don’t put myself at risk by doing so. If you want to ignore it or think I should be silent then there’s not much else to be said.
-
What I can tell you is that I know what it is like to lose a key worker through cuts, and it isn’t good. And I’m an adult with the inner and outer resources to at least get by. Goodness only knows how it is for these girls. Or was, until the funding was found.
I don't have the same experience as you, but I can completely understand the effect the loss of a key worker with which a victim has developed a personal relationship will have, regardless of whether that key worker is made redundant due to a charity application being unsuccessful or leaves for other reasons.
But what you are implying is, in effect, that CiN should fund this centre in perpetuity, as otherwise there will always a point where a new application may be unsuccessful. And, of course in the interests of fairness, if CiN simply continue funding for this project as failing to fund a new application will have a detrimental effect, they should do so for other projects meaning that no new projects can ever be funded and that cannot be right.
What you are alluding to is what I was discussing last night - effectively that if this is a core and essential service it should be funded through the public purse, not via a series of 3-year charity funding applications where funding is limited and there cannot be a guarantee that a new application will be successful.
-
Ok, if you want to be free to be out there with your experience of awarding funding but won’t acknowledge my experience as a service user in this discussion then I don’t think there’s a great deal of point in continuing.
But the issue here isn't the importance of the service - we all agree on that. The issue is about how funding decisions are required to be made in circumstances where the value of applications to the scheme far outstrips the available funds.
And I'm sure all the projects coming forward to CiN (or at least those considered fundable, regardless of whether there are sufficient funds actually to fund them) are extremely important and the decision to fund or otherwise will have a significant impact on the lives of children.
-
I have been following this discussion. Throughout, Prof D has been (very patiently) providing an objective description of the way in which grant awarding institutions behave. At no time has he made any comment about the circumstances of the present situation in Glasgow. He has simply described the process involved and the mechanism by which a particular funding decision may have reached. He has not been concerned with the merit of any decision merely the decision making itself.
Rhi and NS appear to be berating him because he has not not made any subjective comment which would agree with their own subjections. My own conclusion is that it is pointless being rational - you will only be attacked.
Thanks HH - I appreciate it.
-
I have been following this discussion. Throughout, Prof D has been (very patiently) providing an objective description of the way in which grant awarding institutions behave. At no time has he made any comment about the circumstances of the present situation in Glasgow. He has simply described the process involved and the mechanism by which a particular funding decision may have reached. He has not been concerned with the merit of any decision merely the decision making itself.
Rhi and NS appear to be berating him because he has not not made any subjective comment which would agree with their own subjections. My own conclusion is that it is pointless being rational - you will only be attacked.
I understand that that is your perception but I would suggest it is wrong for the following reasons:
First, the point of the post is the specific case. I don't see that what Prof D has posted in regards to the general process as relevant to that discussion. I have not attacked him for that, just ignored it as irrelevant
Sevond, while his description of the general process has been objective, as far as I can se, his position as regards the specific case here has not been. When in the course of discussion, the CIN statement came out, he accepted that as being true and the statement from the Rape Crisis Centre as therefore being incorrect. I don't know who is correct in the specific case and an unwilling to assume that one side is correct. Indeed it may be that both sides are in part correct and in part wrong.
At this stage I will note that I apologise to Prof D for saying I was lying. I don't have enough information to justify that what I see as a significant misrepresentation of my position here was deliberate. I will just emphasise the point though that I don't see that we can dismiss what the Rape Crisis Centre said to accept what CIN said. That isn't taking a position on who is correct here.
Finally, I may be simply seeing a pattern that isn't there and being 'triggered' but the idea of women only spaces is getting attacked generally because of our continued confusion of sex/gender in terms of rights. As mentioned at the start of the thread, if there is a push to award funds in the basis of insufficient support for the other sex in such support groups, I suspect that more because of trans rights arguments, such as what has lead to the women's officer in the Labour Party being trans, than anything else. I may be wrong but I think it is a worrying problem.
-
I agree with NS’s last paragraph. But to note, that isn’t a problem with the Rosey project.
https://www.roseyproject.co.uk/content/lgbti/
-
I was talking to a social worker yesterday about this case and he said it’s inhumane. In his experience a lot of these decisions are made by tick box and bare data rather than looking at individual projects on their merits and the the humans involved at the forefront of the decision making process.
He also made the point that prevention is always, always cheaper. Why axe something that may relieve at least some of the demand on the crisis service, not to mention saving young lives from the consequences of sex crime?
-
I understand that that is your perception but I would suggest it is wrong for the following reasons:
...
What balderdash! Both organisations were probably entirely honest and correct throughout. It is just that the "debate" was not based on any verified facts.
And as for approving or condemning the outcomes of entirely hypothetical cases .. ? Really?
-
I was talking to a social worker yesterday about this case and he said it’s inhumane. In his experience a lot of these decisions are made by tick box and bare data rather than looking at individual projects on their merits and the the humans involved at the forefront of the decision making process.
He also made the point that prevention is always, always cheaper. Why axe something that may relieve at least some of the demand on the crisis service, not to mention saving young lives from the consequences of sex crime?
These points seem fine in general, but to deal with any particular case you need the facts pertaining directly to it.
-
What balderdash! Both organisations were probably entirely honest and correct throughout. It is just that the "debate" was not based on any verified facts.
And as for approving or condemning the outcomes of entirely hypothetical cases .. ? Really?
How did you assess probability here? Given that bot h contradict each other how could they both be correct.
And hypothetical cases are often used, do you just throw your hands up when asked a hypothetical, and go 'Really!' Really? Also not really clear what hypothetical you are referring to.