While in DfE I personally saw an attempt by officials to remove an external adviser for expressing gender critical views.

The attempt was less sophisticated than the 'hit job' against Falkner, but used very similar means and language.

Thread.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/26/ehrc-suspends-investigation-baroness-falkner/

The individual concerned was a senior specialist in a part-time formal advisory role.

They were highly respected in their field of expertise, and had been in this particular role for several years.

The role was not concerned with gender or trans.

Shortly after a ministerial reshuffle, we got told that there were 'concerns' about this individual.

They had posted statements on social media along the lines of 'I stand with J K Rowling' or that transwomen shouldn't compete in women's sport.

It was true they had done this.

These posts were lawful, measured and not abusive.

Nor were they a dominant part of the person's social media activity, which was focused on their core field of expertise.

Officials acknowledged these subjects had not come up in the course of their work for the department.

Nevertheless, we were told that some officials felt the statements showed that the person was not an 'appropriate' person to have in this role.

One junior official claimed to feel 'unsafe' working with this person, and that others would feel the same way.

This was despite the fact, it was acknowledged, that these subjects had never come up in dialogue with the department, and that the individual had never treated anyone, regardless of their personal characteristics, with anything less than respect or courtesy.

The entire rested on the case that simply by having publicly expressed these views - lawful, reasonable views, views expressed in Parliament, in the Times, and confirmed by the courts as protected by law - the individual was unsuited to work with DfE, and made people 'unsafe'.

Fortunately, a minister made clear they were having none of it and the issue was dropped.

The individual continued in their role.

But, to my knowledge, no action was taken against the officials who sought to oust a senior and respected individual.

We should be very clear about what this was.

It was not a case of alleged bullying, or harassment.

It was a deliberate attempt by officials to get an individual dismissed due to disagreeing with their political views.

And senior officials stood by and let it happen.

I believe 95%+ of officials are committed to impartiality.

But this loophole is allowing a tiny minority of activists to seek to weaponise equality law against leaders who they oppose politically.

Severe and punitive action should be taken against those who do this.

There is a role for the civil service in solving this.

Senior leaders need to make clear that such actions are unacceptable, and have no place in the civil service - with disciplinary action imposed where needed.

Where staff cannot accept this, they can find other employment.

But one way or another, this needs to end.

This rash of attacks on leaders - most recently, Falkner - who dare to oppose progressive policies is unacceptable.

Those who see the value of impartiality in our civil service should be at the forefront of solving this.