Lisa Nandy interview demonstrates she still doesn't understand Safeguarding yet & neither do the other Labour leadership candidates.

Someone needs to ask all the leadership candidates if accepting biological facts rather than accepting that TWAW is transphobic ?

I normally argue that, if we're going to win this, we've got to allow people room to change their minds. This does not however extend to back pedalling and arse covering.

She could have said at the time that she had misgivings about expulsions.
Even now she could hold up her hands and say she dropped a clanger when she signed it. It's never too late to do the right thing in my opinion.
Instead she calls for an open debate? The bloody brass neck of the woman.

And no I don't think Starmer has any more integrity but at least he has the wit to recognise a trap when he sees one, which is kind of important in a leader.

Another one not fit to look after the school hamster at half-term.

So she signs a pledge calling women's groups hate groups and demanding that anyone who debates any aspect of this is transphobic and must be thrown out of the party and then a couple of days later does a reverse ferret and says she doesn't want to shut down debate and we must talk about it.
So has she withdrawn her signature??? ....... Thought not.

I can’t believe that this is what the labour party are eating themselves over.

I think that the sentiment of the pledge about protecting trans rights and about accepting that trans men are men and trans women are women is really important

I'd like Nandy to explain at exactly what point a person changes sex in her opinion. Is it at the point when they say 'I am a (wo)man'? Can we always trust that every person who claims to be the opposite sex is telling the truth about their trans status? Especially considering that convicted male criminals identify as transgender at a much higher rate than the general population.

Nandy desperately trying to backpedal a bit now.

Too late, love.

“I have to say, that was the part of the pledge that gave me pause for thought about whether to sign it,” said Nandy. “I decided to sign it in the end because I think that the sentiment of the pledge about protecting trans rights and about accepting that trans men are men and trans women are women is really important, especially at the moment with the level of discrimination that people face.”

She added: “I don’t think that proscribing organisations is actually the right way to deal with disciplinary issues in the Labour party.

“I think that the question for us is always about individual behaviour and it’s right to recognise that there are women who have fought for generations in order to create safe spaces for women who want to have a proper debate about how we best protect that in an era where we’ve recognised that trans men are men, trans women are women, and we’ve got to do far more to protect trans women from harm as well.

“I want to see us have an open debate, I don’t want to see us close down debate and I don’t want anybody who’s listening to this to think that I do.”

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/23/lisa-nandy-wording-trans-rights-pledge-labour-leadership

Personally, I'd like to see more backbone and integrity in our elected representatives.

And this is why none of those who signed the pledge are ready for leadership. Maybe give it a few years, get more experience and they might be suitable, but not when making such obvious mistakes.

These people have got to persuade others, not sign any old nonsense and hope no-one pulls them up on it.

womansplaceuk.org/statement-on-meeting-with-dawn-butler/

The problem for Nandy and the others is that they never took the opportunities presented to them to meet with WPUK

I mentioned this on another thread, but its relevant here.

WPUK met with butler in 2018. The details of the meeting and names of attendees was leaked to pink news

"Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success."

The problem for Nandy and the others is that they never took the opportunities presented to them to meet with WPUK, and others, in parliament - when given that opportunity, last year. If they had been more well informed, and in a more rounded way than they would not have had to think on the hoof when questioned in public, and would not have fallen straight into the mantras and lines promoted by the training manual.

I'm sure all these women were absolutely hammered to sign.

Unless they literally had a gun to their heads they could have chosen not to. There may have been consequences for not doing so, but the fact remains they made a choice.

Personally, I'd like to see more backbone and integrity in our elected representatives.

Good point.

She thought about her own chances of winning the leadership election. That is all.

I well understand these women had real reason to fear not signing: the political lobby that would have reacted are damn scary, particularly to women.

But these are people who have ambitions to be prime minister. If they are so weak that they capitulate in the face of a few noisy activists on twitter and some extremists in their own party, how would they react to a real violent threat to the country?

Personally, I'd like to see more backbone and integrity in our elected representatives.

The bombardment, harassment and pressure tactics used by this political lobby when they want an individual or organisation to do something are also well known. I'm sure all these women were absolutely hammered to sign.

"gave me pause for thought"

But not enough to decide that maybe it would be better to do her own thinking instead of mindlessly going along with the mob.

If you want to be a leader you should be prepared to lead, not follow. On seeing that pledge she should have read, digested, considered and only then decided whether to sign. If you're the sort of person who signs because it's what everyone else is doing or because someone has told you it's the right thing to do, you're not fit to be any sort of leader.

"With hindsight if we could all have signed a pledge card at the beginning to say that we wouldn't sign pledge cards we'd probably be in a much better place,"

And I'd unpack that as meaning "We would have had a good, no blame reason not to have to either sign or be declaimed as a heretic, and to not have to make plain our position before people voted".

I well understand these women had real reason to fear not signing: the political lobby that would have reacted are damn scary, particularly to women. I have more respect for the women candidates who have nailed their colours to the mast than I do for Starmer who is as Stoned as they are, but not going to tell voters what he believes in and what he will do to them until he's safely in power and it's too late for them to prevent him.

"gave me pause for thought"

"...that people are being very tiresome about not listening to me or letting me do just what I want".

"So, I've paused and now realise that I need to re-frame the education and expulsion as an opportunity to take a break in a gulag. We'll schedule the dates and won't take no for an answer because we have so many concerns about you".

"gave me pause for thought"

Bullshit. If she really thought that she could have signed the other pledge, the one Starmer signed.

The Lisa Nandy backtrack this morning is something else.

Rob Powell @robpowellnews
^NEW: Labour leadership contender @lisanandy
says she signed the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights pledge because the sentiment of it was right but adds that proscribing organisations is not the way forward and that part of the pledge did give her "pause for thought" #ridge^

REMINDER: Point nine of this pledge card (signed by Nandy and RLB, but not Starmer) has sparked an argument within Labour as it says that groups like Woman’s Place UK and LGB Alliance are trans-exclusionist hate groups...

MORE: Lisa Nandy says that pledge cards are not helpful as they tend to pit people against each other and that all the Labour leadership contenders should have signed a pledge card vowing not to sign pledge cards! #ridge

Also a reminder that Nandy didn't think that sex offenders in women's prisons was an issue...

Nandy rows back a bit on Sophie Ridge this morning: news.sky.com/story/live-environment-secretary-george-eustice-questioned-over-government-flood-response-11941143

Asked whether she agreed with one of the points in a pledge card backing kicking people out of the party from two women's rights organisations, Nandy says it "gave me pause for thought"

"The sentiment of the pledge about protecting trans rights... is really important ," she continues.

"I don't think prescribing is the right way to deal with disciplinary issues within the Labour Party.

"The question is always about individual behaviour."

She says it's right to recognise there are people who fought for women-only spaces who "want to have a proper debate about how we best protect that".

"With hindsight if we could all have signed a pledge card at the beginning to say that we wouldn't sign pledge cards we'd probably be in a much better place," she jokes, because pledge cards are being used to "pit people against each other", citing Brexit and the Israel/ Palestine debate.