I want to come back to the EDI point, because it’s about so much more than LGBTQ+.
To deny the need for EDI is to say:
- it was okay that for decades the AGPAR test used to determine a newborn’s health didn’t work equally well for dark and white skins, leading to worse outcomes for black and brown babies;
- it is fine that cars are routinely designed for men, meaning women are 73% more likely to be severely injured, and 17% more likely to die in a front end collision than men
- there is no problem with Muslim and Jewish children being much more at risk of measles, and all its complications, when a simple tweak to the vaccine could resolve the issue once it is as identified
- that it’s reasonable that people in poorer communities die younger, and live with ill-health much longer, than those in affluent areas;
- that its entirely appropriate that many older people live in isolation due to factors like poor house design, poor transport planning, fewer services for deprived communities
- that it’s fine that charities in poorer areas get less grant funding to provide help to local people than those in more affluent areas, where there are more likely to be volunteers with the skills and time to write funding bids, or the money to pay a professional
I could go on. Are you okay with all those things, Urms? Because without EDI staff and programmes, they would never have been challenged (or even identified).
New computer stolen by builder
What colour car do you have or did you used to drive?
Recalled for a further appointment after a routine mammogram


