I was one of the transactivists on the channel 4 documentary, I regret what I did — this is why

I was thinking about this for a bit this morning. Call me old fashioned, but I had this understanding that of you were properly ashamed of something, you accepted that you had to make amends.

If you wear a mask, intimidate women because you don't agree with them, and have a moment of epiphany when your behaviour is broadcast nationally and you see yourself, then an article saying you are ashamed and shocked by your behaviour isn't really terribly convincing.

Shame-facedness would suggest going to women privately and not parading your very, very partial apology as venue to gain the plaudits of the women you still hold in contempt.

God, when I apologize to someone because I've done something I'm ashamed of, I go to them, I don't put an announcement in the parish newsletter with a few caveats about how I am sorry even though they are still a terrible person.

So I guess I've woken up this morning after mulling it over and come down quite firmly on the "ok, you're sorry for being a terrorist. So do better and don't expect applause for not being a terrorist. That's normal decency, we don't applaud that. That's like applauding someone for not beating up their granny." side of things.

As I said before, good luck finding a job after graduation. If people don't get jobs because their social media profile shows their enjoyment of partying, I suspect terrorism might be an immediate "no" as well

A cynic would say that this 'apology' is a way of getting a job. A 'name' if you like in the 'debate' alongside the Paris Lee's, Munroe Bergdoff etc. Someone to be called upon to give opinion.
I am a cynic.
There is no debate. No compromise to be reached. No men in female spaces ever.

Knick knack paddy wack

Maybe I'm taking posts too personally - but my originally post was not meant to excuse poor behaviour on account of youth. If you read right the way through my post you would have read that I had my first child when I was 19 -younger than the idiot in question - and that I feel that being young does not excuse his aggressive behaviour.

My point relates to how worthless it is to engage in 'debate' with someone so young and so closed off. So involved with his own crusade. I find it beneath me to engage with a bunch of 20 year olds- certainly on-line - who ascribe to such behaviour

Likewise I'm tired of having to explain what I really meant on here. I tend, myself, to try to understand where someone else is coming from before I jump down their throat; especially when I see myself as a friend rather than an enemy.

Relevant qualifications - Knows how to take selfies, shirking responsibility for the results of one's actions

Accomplishments in previous position - Frightened women old enough to be your nan, planned deployment of smoke bomb but failed to execute plan successfully, revealed potentially incriminating plan on the internet (so you can definitely trust me in a position that provides access to confidential customer data and/or trade secrets!)

Goals - Bully women into submission verbally rather than physically

Hobbies - intimidating women

Profile - a cute girl with great hair and part-time balaclava wearing terrorist.

LOL! But yes, exactly. Operation Clean Up ahoy!

If people don't get jobs because their social media profile shows their enjoyment of partying,

Tangent. Female jobseekers seem to have a difficult time and there are some heart rending accounts on MN about people who've had 16-100+ interviews and not obtained employment.

However, there are now initiatives to persuade employers to consider men with criminal records because there are 'so many skill shortages and we have to be able to fill them'.

I agree with rehab. of offenders - yet I'm struck by the number of women who are finding it so hard to get back into the workplaces in the context of this claim that employers must be given inducements to overlook convictions because it's the only way to meet their vacancies.

It's not the kind of stuff you would list on your CV

Hobbies - intimidating women

Profile - a cute girl with great hair and part-time balaclava wearing terrorist.

That piece of film will follow them forever and they desperately want to repair the damage.

But they are just kids, and we must remind ourselves of this continually, when caught out by their aggressive provocations

There are numerous occasions when I can I not engage with aggressive kids. Almost the entire time, actually.

But not when they are spearheading a movement to force themselves into a space where I'm taking my clothes off.

I agree I’m not negotiating my rights or the rights of other women.

Women have rights, my answer to them being removed is ‘No’.

Society doesn't care that this person is "only 20". Society cares (or damn well should care) that this person was, and perhaps still is, prepared to inflict actual harm, intimidate and threaten other people to get what they want. This is not negotiation. It's terrorism.

As I said before, good luck finding a job after graduation. If people don't get jobs because their social media profile shows their enjoyment of partying, I suspect terrorism might be an immediate "no" as well.

Yep. There is no debate to be have. If a significant minority of women say no (and I don't think it is a minority, but even if it was), then the answer is no. "No" is not the beginning of a negotiation.

People are not misconstruing words when they disagree and give other interpretations and opinions. Disagreement is not attack, it's debate.

To quote again: 'or nothing will ever change', this isn't a situation of two sides where both can sit down and come up with their version of the Good Friday agreement. Women should not be asked to 'compromise' on how much safety, privacy, identity, words for their own biology they must sacrifice to confused people. The very idea that this should even be considered is a massive illustration of the issues facing women and their equality.

I'm no longer concerned about whether or not Esther is really sorry. I now think that if that article leads to some kind of dialogue and debate then it will be a good thing, whatever Esther's motives.

It's "I'm sorry I made myself and my political movement look like the authoritarian bullies that we are", basically.

I think that if we wait for the perfect apology then nothing is ever going to change.

I'm not sure what purpose an apology serves.

This individual has apologised for intimidating and behaving like a thug to the two women who were there at the time. And says they now see that trying to stop meetings happening and acting like a violent thug are not the way to be listened to.

They will now permit women from what they term as a 'hate group' to speak, and intend to make them stop/obey in other ways that don't destroy their public image and public sympathy when shown on tv. Hard questions, bring it on, but they are clear they have zero interest in listening to or considering anything raised by a GC woman.

I don't honestly see that as anything to work with. This isn't someone in the process of questioning the ideology they hold.

If there is anyone reading this who was made to feel afraid by me, please let me take this opportunity to apologise to you. If you’re ever in Bristol I owe you a pint, or two.

Boozing with the authoritarian youth - what fun!

I'll pass up on that offer of a pint but I am listening.

Oh, I'm listening too, but bluntly? Talk is cheap. If you're sorry, then prove it.

Honestly, the reason I've never really commented much on here before, and certainly never on twitter, is because people misconstrue words and twist them to fit their own narrative.

Lang Cleg - you do what you like. But for me, I must remind myself not to engage with those who it is pointless to engage with, or spend too much time on on-line platforms. You can carry on all you like.

There have been several sea lions on this board over the years wanting to ‘discuss things over a pint’.

Why would I go for a pint with someone who thinks I need their permission to speak, and who's already demonstrated a willingness to use their greater size and strength to intimidate women? When a male human has already proven themselves to be potentially inclined to violence towards women the last thing you want to do is add booze to the mix. And yet this person expects women to do just that, because mummy, facilitator, must forgive them, etc.

If either of my kids, who are both young adult males, had behaved like this towards any woman, they would never hear the end of it from me. In fact, if they admitted they were intending to endanger women with smoke bombs in enclosed spaces, we would be talking major fucking intervention.

Also, I have to point people back to the Beryl thread. One of the more harmful Beryl traits is trying to force other women to play loving mummy and eternally patient facilitator to men, always willing to forgive and clean up messes and soothe hurt feelings. It is not a kind or in any way feminist thing to do to another woman, trying to impose that on her.

But they are just kids, and we must remind ourselves of this continually, when caught out by their aggressive provocations

Why must we? Same old imperative that's been used on women since forever.

In my view, what we must do, is centre women and care for those of them who are coerced and threatened and bullied by young adult males.

Why is my must less than your must?

Too many people are quick to jump to attack others who come at things from slightly different angles, as far as I can see. I'm not sure if anyone is referring in any way to my post above...? My point is that I find it below me/impossible to engage in debate with such young, immature and testosterone fuelled behaviour.

It also supports the manchild phenomenon, the idea that it's normal and appropriate for men to grow up much later than women and to be facilitated by women for as long as they think they need. Where were most of us at 20? I'd already moved to a major city in a country I'd never lived in before, found a flat, moved myself into it, and generally managed by myself for a couple of years. People fight in wars at that age. They get married. They have children of their own.

Were any of you in the habit of donning balaclavas and physically intimidating people in an attempt to deny them the right to free speech at 20? Would it even have occurred to you that you had the right to do so?

This person is not a vulnerable child, they're a bully. Perhaps they will eventually learn not to be, maybe they'll even develop some trace of respect for women, but given that they still believe that it's up to them to decide whether or not they should let a woman speak it's not looking great so far.