So, hands up if you have been blocked by LM on Twitter?

Madigan is supposed to be a Women's Officer. This is a position intended to promote women's rights and recruit women to the Labour Party. Not promote the issues of trans identified males exclusively and trump those of actual women.

@thebewilderness refusing to debate with specific people is not the same as refusing to ever debate anything ever. For example, many Jewish activists will not debate with holocaust deniers. Does that mean they aren't willing to engage with their critics? Or should they be entitled to refuse?

...I do think it's a stretch to take that as a sign that she's totally unwilling to engage in debate.
We took Madigan's word for their unwillingness to engage in discussion or debate. I suggest you do the same.

I must confess I can't make sense of your first message because of your attempts to avoid using pronouns

Why do you think that might be? Might it be to avoid calling a male by a female pronoun?

Thebewilderness where have I made straw man arguments?

I must confess I can't make sense of your first message because of your attempts to avoid using pronouns. If you can find a way of making your point more clearly I'll try to respond.

I don't think it is different. Everyone knows what their own limits are - maybe one or two tweets is easy to ignore but the cumulative effect is too much. What one person thinks is fine could be distressing to another. LM is entitled to set her own limits on Twitter, and I do think it's a stretch to take that as a sign that she's totally unwilling to engage in debate. After all, she wouldn't be where she is now if she hadn't spent a lot of time in the public eye defending her views and putting her point across to an audience.

On second thought, it seems to me on the basis of the straw man arguments you are presenting diet coke girrrrrl, Never mind.

DetCoke, you are ignorant of some facts. Madigan is the one who says they do not represent women who refuse to agree with Madigan regarding Madigan's beliefs. You are referring to women as Madigan critics without them ever criticizing Madigan. How does that work exactly??

I think that's a bit different. From what I can make out, LM has proactively blocked people who've never interacted with @madigan_lily at all. I've seen some forthright tweets sent to LM but nothing anything like as nasty as the stuff routinely sent to gender critical women. Debating skills and a thick skin are conspicuously lacking in LM's case.

Not engaging with every one of your critics on twitter doesn't mean you aren't representing your constituents. As a student I worked for a Member of the Scottish Parliament and they had plenty of people blocked on Twitter. Twitter isn't an official communication channel for public figures, and no-one should be obliged to face the criticism of every person who disagrees with them on Twitter. It's draining, miserable, and bad for mental health. Elected officials have offices, email addresses and telephone numbers for their constituents to contact them. The casual and often anonymous criticism and even abuse from strangers via twitter is not something they are required to engage with.

Ask yourself this - if Stella Creasy were to block a man who liked several tweets accusing her of being a feminazi and failing to represent her constituents, or who replied to a tweet agreeing that she is bad at her job and shouldn't have been elected, would you accept that she had a right to block him? Or would you demand that she continue to engage with him, no matter how disrespectful and obviously hostile he was?

There's been a big discussion on another thread, I forget which, that concluded it was for the best to not use male pronouns for LM in order to make life easier for MNHQ. It's safe to assume they're coming under increasing pressure in the form of legal threats from TRA organisations to heavily moderate or shut down any gender critical debate on the forums. Ridiculous I know but it's more important to keep the debate going and get the word out there. So, if you can't bring yourself to use female pronouns for LM (I can't) then try to use initials or their name instead. I feel hideous advising what people should or shouldn't say, do want to keep the debate going...

As not-a-lawyer, I'd argue that there is a difference between being required to engage with people hostile to you and a reasonable expectation that persons serving in any sort of official or semi-official capacity be open to questions and feedback from the general public that pertain directly to their role.

I'd argue that there is a reasonable expectation that channels of communication which are used by a public figure to promote their agenda may, by default, be assumed to also be available for feedback by the general public.

I'd also argue that the standard of evidence required to reasonably declare someone 'hostile' goes somewhat beyond asking questions, expressing disagreement in a non-abusive manner or even just expressions of agreement with some third party who disagrees with a person.

Nobody's demanding that LM actually respond to all questions. Nobody's questioning LM's right to block people who abuse him. What people are saying is that LM's default position of blocking anyone and everyone who expresses or could be construed as holding opposite opinions is problematic.

LM is positioning himself as a politician, as clearly shown by various statements to the effect that LM is seeking elected office or positions within the LP. Surely you're not arguing that politicians should basically be free to shut out any criticism and refuse debate?

While arguably not illegal, this would be an approach that is, in its essence, inherently undemocratic and utterly incompatible with the basic principles of liberal democracy.

If LM ever were to be elected to any public office, blocking all the non-sycophants wouldn't work. Councillors and MPs are expected to represent all their constituents, even the ones who didn't vote for them. LM's attitude on social media is gobsmackingly awful and non-inclusive. A lot of it is probably down to immaturity.

Well then, perhaps it's because I'm a lawyer that I think it's odd and a little concerning that people will insinuate that there are duties and responsibilities (for example, being required to engage with people you know are hostile to you) where no such duties or responsibilities exist...

@DietCokeGirrrrrl, being in tech basically means that you tend to view technology as a means to an end and not as a personal playground. I could (but won't) go off on an endless tangent about how people are endangering themselves and others by failing to realise the extent to which their use of technology is NOT a private affair ...

Suffice to say, if you're a public figure, which LM is thanks to bullying his way into a women's offer position and lapping up the resulting publicity, and you own social media accounts, the expectation is generally, that these belong to your public persona.

If you want to engage in banter with friends, you're free to set up private accounts, accounts under a pseudonym, etc.

Owning social media accounts in your own name is akin to getting on top of a soapbox at Speaker's Corner and shouting your beef with the world out via megaphone - if Speaker's Corner had an archive of everyone who ever spoke there and what they said.

Anyone who doesn't act accordingly is either supremely naive or plain stupid.

@Terfousbreakdown I don't see what you being in tech has to do with it...? Either you believe that every person has the right to choose who they do or don't engage with, or you don't. That's not a technical concern

@thebewilderness, I'd love that, though I'm currently overseas, so can't take the lead.

If someone currently in the UK steps forward, I'd be willing to re-join the LP to support the effort.

Perhaps it is time for female women to request representation for their half of the human population in the Labour Party?

Since Madigan refuses to represent any women except those who claim to be "transwomen" it is easy to see why they have so little work to do as the Women's Officer.

Madigan wants women who speak for themselves on their private personal twitter purged from the Labour Party, so as an official of that party it is hardly appropriate to refuse to engage with the people one claims to represent.

It's twitter, not her work email. She can block who she likes.

See, I actually think this is debatable!

I'm in tech, so may have a somewhat biased view on this kind of thing, but essentially:

If you happen to have any sort of official function in any organisation, maintaining a social media presence is pretty much de rigeur these days. You're very welcome to also maintain personal SM accounts at the same time, though the 'done thing' so to speak, is to set these private, use a pseudonym or whatnot.

LM is basically using his Twitter account to self-market and publicly make all sorts of announcements that pertain to the women's officer's role in some shape or form but is simultaneously refusing to actually allow for opposing points of view.

As someone who advises clients on how to do this kind of thing in a professional capacity, I'd have to say: amateur levels of SM management!

This is a bit weird. Obviously none of you are big fans of LM so why are you annoyed that she's sussed that out and blocked you? Your complaints seem to be that you were subtle enough in your disapproval that she ought not to have noticed, but obviously not!

It's twitter, not her work email. She can block who she likes. I've blocked loads of people on twitter because I don't like their views and have no interest in hearing what they say (for example, Donald trump, katie Hopkins, piers Morgan). LM is entitled to do the same...

Completely lost the plot now.