Lord Paddick resigns the LGBT LD executive

@TerfinUSA

I didn't think that strictly what happened.

Obviously I'm reading between the tweets here, I I think the chain of events was:

• BP responds to a tweet asking politicians to engage in the debate by asking to speak to some "sensible" RadFems.

• Lots of people respond to point him with Karen Ingelia Smith and a Woman's Place

• Turns out he knows KIS and they DM and agree to meet offline

• the LD activist (who I think is in a relationship with a member of the LDLGBT group, is very vocal in criticising PD on Twitter.

• PD issues a statement saying he didn't intend to offend anyone but plans to hear from all groups and make up his own mind.

• At this point it seems behind the scenes there was a discussion between PD and the LDLGBT group. They expressed strong concern about these meetings. It sounds like PD volunteered his resignation but it was rejected. It would also appear that some "deal" was done about not publicising these meetings.

• PD responds to further questions and criticism about who/when he's met people from AWP. He confirms the meetings are going ahead, but he's not going to engage in debate via twitter.

• LDLGBT then tweet suggesting PD has broken a promise by giving these meetings publicity

• Looks like PD volunteers his resignation again and this time it's accepted.

My take from this is that PD is walking a fine line but he's not someone who takes kindly to being told who he can/can't speak to.

I've no idea what conclusions he will reach but tbh we asked people to engage and I think he deserves credit for doing so.

I have faith that AWP and KIS are extremely capable of putting women's concerns across in a logical, reasonable and respectful way.

I don't think LDLGBT comes out of this very well and tbh they've lost as chair a very senior and respected politician because they insisted on trying to prevent debate.

My opinion is that Brian paddick is a good man

This is my impression too from the way he has conducted himself here, and some of the things shared on this thread too. He is listening to both sides despite considerable pressure.

It sounds like he cares about principles, doing the right thing, and also the rights of the LGBT community, and of vulnerable women (given his past work outlined above).

The crime stats being reported by sex has an impact on understanding and tackling the different reasons women and men tend to be in prison, too.

It sounds like Lib Dem LGBT person (I believe a current or ex-councillor in Cambridge?) tried to force Paddick to promise not to meet any feminists, and when he said 'no', they said 'well you better resign then mate'

Pratchet only once MPs and others with political influence are able to listen...
James Kirkup [[
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/if-mumsnet-can-stand-up-for-free-speech-why-cant-mps/]]
Long before Mumsnet or the internet even existed, we created a place where people’s views could be heard and discussed, where opinions could be aired and compared. We even employed a group of people to ensure that such opinions would be raised and considered. The place is called Parliament and the people are called MPs. As a result of writing about this issue here over the last few months, I have come to know that quite a few of those MPs, from all parties, think that the sorts of questions the Mumsnetters are asking about gender are quite reasonable and should be answered. But precious few of those MPs will say so in public. They are not willing to do what Justine Roberts has done and say openly that there is nothing transphobic about debating gender and sex, even if some people don’t like some of the things that are said in that debate, because – and this cannot be said enough – there is no right not to be offended.

Rowan: every time they do this we can point to the many disgusting examples of transactivist homophobia. It's rampant. They are such hypocrites.

A general large increase in women being convicted of sex offences I meant to say.

This was reported in some of the papers with a big headline. And then exploring why and how shocking that so many more women are committing and being convicted of sex offences.

Even though it was still 1000 times less than the sex offences committed by men!

Who does this help?

• Skewing the stats to make it look like more women are "doing it too"
• Taking the spotlight off the men doing it

One clue - not women.

brian on rape at met

general on him

It was the leveson enquiry where he said that a report he prepared on rape handling in the met and how it was useless got watered down and ultimately suppressed.

Like I say he is a good man, I'm sure he's an intelligent man, and is a man who clearly is going to get pissed off with people telling him who he may or may not talk to. So, I'm sure he will go ahead with his conversations, and maybe he will see what those of us who have concerns about opening all female only stuff up on the basis of self ID are worried about.

The crime stats piece may be a good one to flag with him - the stats are already going cockeyed - 8 women convicted of rape last year, and a general large increase. Are rape laws being used differently (rape requires a penis usually) to prosecute more women? Are women offending more? Or, is this a result of some of the group that commits the vast majority of sex offences being included with the women's stats? Ultimately over time meaning the stats are useless, as we lose sight of who is doing what to who.

KittTheCar my thoughts too...

Not read whole thread.

My opinion is that Brian paddick is a good man, as an ex very high level police officer he has a lot of experience of all sorts of stuff ie he's not a career politician. To get to that position as an out gay man in the met (and it was some years ago) I imagine means that he is extremely determined and thick skinned.

I will never forget him speaking to ? An enquiry about handling of rape cases while he was at met, how he had got a report together and was trying to improve things but the report was altered and ultimately buried. He was very angry. A few have said he may not be super interested in women but more not liking voices being shut down, I wouldn't be so sure.

I am pleased that he seems to be ready to hear the concerns that some women have. (Increasing numbers of women, as it gets more into the mainstream and we start to see effects even before this goes through eg sport, prison, crime stats. And things like the top shop changing room, which a more related to daily life and illustrate where things are currently heading).

Brian if you see this you've got a bit of a long term fan here

The current accusation by LibDem LGBT+ that Mumsnetters are calling for a new section 28 has resonance due the anniversary.

It's particular meaning for LibDems was highlighted by Zoe O'Connell member of the LibDem LGBT+ executive in a speech to conference.

www.complicity.co.uk/blog/

"And, as you’ve already heard, this year is a special anniversary.
"An anniversary of something really, really… bad.
I can see a few staff members near the front looking worried now. Don’t worry, I’m not talking about the formation of the Liberal Democrats!
No, I’m talking about the 24th of May, 1988. The Conservatives implementing section 28, banning any mention of homosexuality in schools. Leaving a generation of frightened LGBT kids with nowhere to turn.
Liberals back then were determined folk – just as many of us are now – and were not going to waste any time. After all, the old Liberal Party had already included full equality in their 1979 general election manifesto so many in the newly formed Liberal Democrats were already well on board.
And they didn’t let being busy with the formation of a new party slow down their campaigning.
Just nine days after the party was formed, Simon Hughes MP – was amongst those standing up in the Commons, speaking out against section 28.
Thirty years on. What’s changed?
In terms of a liberal commitment to LGBT rights, not much."

RedToothBrush
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the "Please note that this event to open to anyone who self identifies as female."

In the publicity for the event for aspiring Libdem women MPs you linked to.

It is both disappointing and frightening the depth to which this narrative has become accepted. I watched the recording of the Bristol meeting on Facebook yesterday. Heather Brinscall Evans (sp?) made the point about the ingrained narrative. How do we challenge this?

No one's brain is 'in the wrong body'. Discrimination against trans people is really discrimination against non-conformists and homosexuals.

It is important to be aware of the background to the depth & origins of feelings of discrimination against people who are transgender as outlined by Sarah Brown (libDem LGBT executive) in 2014
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice
although in light of current concerns about the use of Social media by some TRAs worth considering...

In 25 years, Barrett has seen trans people become "a networked bunch" – more so than other people, he thinks – thanks to the internet. Lees, who also works for Trans Media Action, says social media is the "essential catalyst" for the transformation of trans people in society. "Society is in transition and we've woken up from the operation and there's no going back. We can't pretend that trans people don't exist any more," she says. "People have been taking the piss out of trans people for 60 years. The narrative on trans issues has been controlled by people who have no understanding of them. Social media is about us grabbing the narrative back and telling our own stories – this is our reality, this is what we go through and this is what matters to us. We're here, we're in your face, we definitely exist. That's the most important thing – realising we exist."

Did you see that Sophie Walker met WPUK

Frankly, all the faffing about, vacillation and resigning that is going on on his twitter account does not fill me with confidence.

Its a bit tangled up as The Liberal Democrat party have said they aren't responsible for the LibDem LGBT+ twitter account

Huh. I didn't realise that. I think anyone would assume that the LGBT+ Lib Dem account wasn't official, especially as it states in their twitter bio that they are...

sorry.. the issues that LibDemWoman raised at WPUK and here were, I think, about feeling bullied and silenced in discussions within LibDem FB closed groups

Its a bit tangled up as The Liberal Democrat party have said they aren't responsible for the LibDem LGBT+ twitter account although of course LibDem members, some who may have key positions, are tweeting from the account... they've commented a couple of times that there are four of them.
Anyway, I think the issue that 'LibDemWOman' raised was within closed LibDem facebook groups... there of course its much clearer who is saying what.
Hopefully things will come out in the wash soon.... this is a cross party issue!

there are some people in the LGBT LibDems who are very forceful

Yep. That twitter account is embarrassing. Yes it may please all the TRAs in twitter, but I'd bet that most lib Dems and potential lib dem voters are uncomfortable about the things they say. It makes the lib Dems look like a frankly bonkers fringe party.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3211247-The-Lib-Dem-LGBT-twitter-feed-is-annoyed-at-Mumsnet

I cant find the thread prompted by the 'lib dem woman' who spoke up at WPUK London meeting about feeling bullied and silenced by some LibDem members when trying to speak about concerns for women's rights....

there are some people in the LGBT LibDems who are very forceful.

Astonishing that he needs permission from LGBT Lib Dems in order to speak to women. And that he had to "promise" them that it would be in secret as a compromise. That speaks absolute volumes about the power in that relationship.

His tweets come across that he meekly accepts that he has behaved unprofessionally in seeking views of women and therefore his bosses (LGBT Lib Dems) are rightfully very upset with him.

So of course he has to apologise to them and grovel.

He's done the right thing by resigning though. He's tried to be very accommodating to the trans cause and they turned on him purely because he wanted different viewpoints. It might give him food for thought.

Oh. I was all set to get excited about Brian Paddick maybe being an ally. Then he writes this kind of mealy mouthed stuff:

For clarity, in saying @WomansPlaceUK had "genuinely-held concerns" I did not intend to convey that I agreed with those concerns or that they were justified - I have yet to form an opinion. I was trying to say that @WomansPlaceUK have concerns that they believe to be genuine.

Ugh. I find it really hard to see how it’s so hard for a professional politician ( or anyone) to ‘form an opinion’ about a political and material reality issue. especially when one side of the debate (gender critical people) are endlessly supplying facts and arguments and seeking out open discussion,
Whereas the other side of the debate (TRAs and handmaidens) seem to prefer trying to ad hominem silence anyone who merely questions the dogma (let alone anyone who openly disagrees with it), and as a movement who seems to tolerate individuals using manipulative or threatening behaviour and data breaches to make their points.