Starmer’s New Cabinet Secretary Made Staff Join Non-Binary Book Club
Keir Starmer’s new Cabinet Secretary, Dame Antonia Romeo, told a civil servant to join a “gender non-conforming book club” and “challenge the patriarchy” as part of their performance review. The Telegraph has the story.
The new Cabinet Secretary set out plans for the former staff member to spend one day a week on inclusivity programmes when she was head of the Department for International Trade (DIT) from 2017 to 2021.
These included helping to raise “awareness and visibility of non-binary identities” and attending the book club, according to documents reviewed by the Telegraph.
The employee was told to spend up to 20% of their time fulfilling inclusivity goals such as encouraging colleagues to display their preferred pronouns and “recruiting non-binary staff”.
The new allegations will raise fresh questions about her suitability for the role of Britain’s most senior civil servant.
As part of an annual review, she set the employee a target of joining the department’s “gender non-conforming book club”, where government workers supposedly read Middlesex, a 2002 Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Jeffrey Eugenides about an intersex American, as well as books about people transitioning gender, the source said.
Other activities allegedly assigned directly by Dame Antonia included participating in “discussion of the non-binary corporate network” and “challenging dated and discriminatory societal gender norms of expression, presentation, behaviours, roles or expectations that reinforce the patriarchy”.
The former government worker was also required to help create “an inclusive Civil Service” by “encouraging all staff to display their preferred pronouns on their email signature whenever possible”, “celebrating non-binary awareness week” and “recruiting non-binary staff”.
Fulfilment of such corporate objectives contributed 5% to the civil servant’s annual performance appraisal, which was used to determine their career progression.
A further 15% of their performance review was based on the role they played in the department’s “neurodiversity network for dyslexia and dyspraxia”.
Activities Dame Antonia encouraged them to take part in included “planning blogs” for dyslexia and dyspraxia day, recruiting volunteers to help run “neurodiversity awareness presentations”.
In addition to “recruiting disabled staff”, the former civil servant, who reported directly to Dame Antonia, was tasked with launching a “mentoring/buddying scheme” for those with the condition.
The worker was told to spend 20% of their time away from their core role. A reduction of efficiency, in other words. This has no doubt been repeated with many thousands of other public sector employees, thanks to woke bosses.
Hats off to that whistleblower worker who released the details of their appraisal. They’ve tried to do the country a good service, and maybe even jeapordised their future career prospects.
This woman appears to embody everything wrong with the civil service. She seems more preoccupied with ideology than with service delivery. It should be no surprise that Starmer has given her the top job.
Also applies to a lot of the private sector – starts at corporate level and gets pushed onto smaller supplier firms who can barely afford it/are not interested, as a condition of doing business
Yes it’s marginally better but in practice if every corporate is in lockstep then the choice is theoretical unless you go completely off grid. And for an SME the choice is to comply or risk going out of business. It is in my experience sufficient to pay lip service but that is still pernicious.
Was there an able-bodied and minded person in the departmrent or were they all encumbered by some sort of assumed diversity?
Value for money it was not.
The efficiency should start with the termination of this person, if she thinks that 20% of someone’s time should be allocated to things nothing to do with their role. The socialist talking heads are trying to portray this waste of desk space as someone who crosses party lines, because she held senior roles under the conservative misrule. No, the civil service at senior levels has been captured, post Bliar, by left wing activists and it was a core failing of every minister under Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak that they did nothing to sweep the stables clean. That’s what led to accusations of Uniparty, that’s what led to their repeated failure and that is why they got destroyed in the last election, as much as the liberals who still sit on the conservative benches and influence the party from outside Parliament.
She’ll likely get on like a house on fire with Rachel from accounts!
Jakey
1 month ago
What happened to just getting on with the job and taking pride in doing it well!? No wonder we can’t build anything on time or on budget or the fact that nothing seems to work, anywhere!
That would seem to cover a lot of the public sector and some MPs, especially those named Ed.
Old Arellian
1 month ago
The photo at the top of the article is “smug entitlement” personified. In fact, all photos of “it” [I don’t know what pronouns “it” uses] have exactly the same smug look. Pass the bucket…..
Mrs.Croc
1 month ago
Sounds just like the sort of person Starmer would favour
Moonisaharshmistress
1 month ago
Is it possible that so many of the loony woke policies only got going because of, like with the rape gangs, fear? Fear of being called a misogynist in challenging the women proposing the lunacy. .
😂😅😆 That’s funny. First you’d need to deny the fact that there were/are a significant number of men in positions of leadership who initiated/gave the go-ahead to these policies, because they themselves are woketards and have fully promoted DEI etc in their organization, as has been evidenced by many articles featured on this site now.
Your comment is straight out of the misogynist playbook: “Men must never be held accountable for their own poor decision-making or foolish behaviour as long as there’s a woman in the vicinity to scapegoat.”
coviture2020
1 month ago
The righteousness of it all brings on my Tourettes
Jane G
1 month ago
Oh, God – make it stop…
marebobowl
1 month ago
Is it any wonder Britain has been descending into an inferno. Are there any leaders in this country to make britain great again? Does not look like it.
Hi Will. What I want to know – spelt out for me – and what this article does not do – is explain exactly what is wrong with – for example – “told a civil servant to join a “gender non-conforming book club” and “challenge the patriarchy” as part of their performance review“. Can my companion DS readers and commenters help explain. Will, if you expect readers to spend time working out for themselves all the things that are wrong about that, then you are going to be sadly disappointed. I simply have not got the time. No, what precisely is wrong is not immediately obvious to me. I don’t spend my time thinking about stuff like this and normally I don’t meet people who do it. If you think it is so obviously wrong then why did you not bother to explain if it is so obvious? So when you write something about this kind of thing, spell it out. You just assume people will realise automatically that there is something wrong about it. Antonia Romeo clearly thinks there is everything right about it, so please help me so I can learn what is wrong about it? Are any human rights… Read more »
Spend a few minutes instead asking yourself what is right about making someone join a gender non-conforming book club. Spell all the reasons out for yourself, then you might answer the questions you pose in your response.
When I write for other people I don’t assume they can work out the implications. And I don’t expect to read an article which is supposedly criticising the behaviour of someone that does not explain why there is anything to criticise. I don’t have the time to waste and nor do I have the time to waste asking and answering equally stupid questions like “Spend a few minutes instead asking yourself what is right about making someone join a gender non-conforming book club.” I read to be informed. I don’t read to be confused by nonsense. I also notice you don’t bother to answer the issues. Probably because you can’t and you don’t know. I just got an AI to review the article which it did in seconds pointing out what is wrong with it: “Analysis: What the Allegations About Antonia Romeo Actually Raise — and What They Do Not Recent reporting has described allegations that Dame Antonia Romeo, during her time leading a government department, incorporated diversity-related activities into a civil servant’s performance objectives. The coverage highlights participation in a “gender non-conforming book club,” encouragement of pronoun use, and involvement in neurodiversity initiatives. However, the reporting largely implies impropriety without clearly distinguishing between… Read more »
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This country is phuqued.
I commend your spelling diversity.
Did you seriously have higher expectations?
The worker was told to spend 20% of their time away from their core role. A reduction of efficiency, in other words. This has no doubt been repeated with many thousands of other public sector employees, thanks to woke bosses.
Hats off to that whistleblower worker who released the details of their appraisal. They’ve tried to do the country a good service, and maybe even jeapordised their future career prospects.
This woman appears to embody everything wrong with the civil service. She seems more preoccupied with ideology than with service delivery. It should be no surprise that Starmer has given her the top job.
Also applies to a lot of the private sector – starts at corporate level and gets pushed onto smaller supplier firms who can barely afford it/are not interested, as a condition of doing business
But we have a choice to pay the private sector
Yes it’s marginally better but in practice if every corporate is in lockstep then the choice is theoretical unless you go completely off grid. And for an SME the choice is to comply or risk going out of business. It is in my experience sufficient to pay lip service but that is still pernicious.
Yet again Smarmer shows his lack of judgement.
He thinks this stuff is great…
How the …. did Keith get to anywhere never mind the entries on his CV?
All of which should be the top priorities of a Cabinet Secretary…
No worries public sector productivity has slumped. Presumably Starmer picked her because she has the same priorities.
Was there an able-bodied and minded person in the departmrent or were they all encumbered by some sort of assumed diversity?
Value for money it was not.
I’ll give it a year before it is all change again at the top.
A year? Seems very generous.
The efficiency should start with the termination of this person, if she thinks that 20% of someone’s time should be allocated to things nothing to do with their role. The socialist talking heads are trying to portray this waste of desk space as someone who crosses party lines, because she held senior roles under the conservative misrule. No, the civil service at senior levels has been captured, post Bliar, by left wing activists and it was a core failing of every minister under Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak that they did nothing to sweep the stables clean. That’s what led to accusations of Uniparty, that’s what led to their repeated failure and that is why they got destroyed in the last election, as much as the liberals who still sit on the conservative benches and influence the party from outside Parliament.
Pantomime Dame chosen for starring role in Theatre of the Absurd.
Senior Civil Servant? Cabinet Secretary? Just an overpromoted HR girl.
She’ll likely get on like a house on fire with Rachel from accounts!
What happened to just getting on with the job and taking pride in doing it well!? No wonder we can’t build anything on time or on budget or the fact that nothing seems to work, anywhere!
The end point of ‘care in the community’.
That would seem to cover a lot of the public sector and some MPs, especially those named Ed.
The photo at the top of the article is “smug entitlement” personified. In fact, all photos of “it” [I don’t know what pronouns “it” uses] have exactly the same smug look. Pass the bucket…..
Sounds just like the sort of person Starmer would favour
Is it possible that so many of the loony woke policies only got going because of, like with the rape gangs, fear? Fear of being called a misogynist in challenging the women proposing the lunacy. .
😂😅😆 That’s funny. First you’d need to deny the fact that there were/are a significant number of men in positions of leadership who initiated/gave the go-ahead to these policies, because they themselves are woketards and have fully promoted DEI etc in their organization, as has been evidenced by many articles featured on this site now.
Your comment is straight out of the misogynist playbook: “Men must never be held accountable for their own poor decision-making or foolish behaviour as long as there’s a woman in the vicinity to scapegoat.”
The righteousness of it all brings on my Tourettes
Oh, God – make it stop…
Is it any wonder Britain has been descending into an inferno. Are there any leaders in this country to make britain great again? Does not look like it.
Hi Will. What I want to know – spelt out for me – and what this article does not do – is explain exactly what is wrong with – for example – “told a civil servant to join a “gender non-conforming book club” and “challenge the patriarchy” as part of their performance review“. Can my companion DS readers and commenters help explain. Will, if you expect readers to spend time working out for themselves all the things that are wrong about that, then you are going to be sadly disappointed. I simply have not got the time. No, what precisely is wrong is not immediately obvious to me. I don’t spend my time thinking about stuff like this and normally I don’t meet people who do it. If you think it is so obviously wrong then why did you not bother to explain if it is so obvious? So when you write something about this kind of thing, spell it out. You just assume people will realise automatically that there is something wrong about it. Antonia Romeo clearly thinks there is everything right about it, so please help me so I can learn what is wrong about it? Are any human rights… Read more »
Interesting response.
Spend a few minutes instead asking yourself what is right about making someone join a gender non-conforming book club. Spell all the reasons out for yourself, then you might answer the questions you pose in your response.
When I write for other people I don’t assume they can work out the implications. And I don’t expect to read an article which is supposedly criticising the behaviour of someone that does not explain why there is anything to criticise. I don’t have the time to waste and nor do I have the time to waste asking and answering equally stupid questions like “Spend a few minutes instead asking yourself what is right about making someone join a gender non-conforming book club.” I read to be informed. I don’t read to be confused by nonsense. I also notice you don’t bother to answer the issues. Probably because you can’t and you don’t know. I just got an AI to review the article which it did in seconds pointing out what is wrong with it: “Analysis: What the Allegations About Antonia Romeo Actually Raise — and What They Do Not Recent reporting has described allegations that Dame Antonia Romeo, during her time leading a government department, incorporated diversity-related activities into a civil servant’s performance objectives. The coverage highlights participation in a “gender non-conforming book club,” encouragement of pronoun use, and involvement in neurodiversity initiatives. However, the reporting largely implies impropriety without clearly distinguishing between… Read more »
So I feel that is an intellectual equivalent of a more concise “F Off”.