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

She was a researcher for Centrepoint from 2003 to 2005.

She's misrepresented herself and allowing people to think she was frontline staff.

Didn't Jess Phillips do the same? Claimed to "run a Women's Aid" when she was actually a Business Development Manager, and therefore responsible only for fundraising and bringing in contracts to provide services - no contact with actual women clients at all in that role, nor their data, surely? That would be a wholly office-based role. And she wasn't in charge of anything at that level, either. (If she genuinely did run one, why is there nothing available anywhere to indicate that?)

If the facts are indeed that they never had any direct contact with the clients, nor responsibility for their safeguarding, then they're using vulnerable people they never even met, but whose needs paid their salaries, to justify throwing others like them under the fucking bus. They're massaging the facts out of all recognition in pretending they had front line responsibilities when they didn't, so they know how the safeguarding and risk assessment works,when they don't. And they're also drowning out voices of people like Karen Ingala Smith, who did and does work on the ground in the sector, and is therefore genuinely expert. Rhona Hotchkiss, too.

Petty shameful.

It's shocking really.

It's by design.
There is no excuse for it, but keeping people just ignorant enough that they don't want to research, and arrogant enough to feel they don't need to is absolutely done by design.

wellbehavedwomen,
I don't think it's about "keeping the Momentum lot on board" - Nandy has very little support among Momentum. Richard Burgon, on the other hand, who is a big fan of Momentum and very close to its politics, hasn't signed the TRA pledge, and Laura Pidcock, who might be a Corbynite candidate for the leadership if she hadn't lost her seat, is known to oppose the TRA pledge as well! Moreover, hardline supporters of TRAs include centrists such as many Lib Dems.

Lisa Anne Ecky-Thump Nandy, daughter of the head of the Equal Opportunites Commission and the Runnymede Trust, grandaughter of a Liberal MP made a baron.

Less road to Wigan Pier, more rowed to Wigan with grandad a peer.

Lisa Nandy makes much of having worked for Centrepoint Homeless Charity. Her failure to understand quite basic Safeguarding principles & criminal justice issues should demonstrate how people employed as policy writers /comms etc lack fundamental awarenesses which inform the frontline work

Wasn't it Rebecca Wrong-Daily who tried to make it look like she'd worked on the front line of women's refuges in this way when actually she'd been working at some high level office job and lacked (as became apparent) the first clue of front line experience?

The total lack of life skills and wider life experience of this bunch is frightening, and makes it clear what an awful idea professional politicians are and why the whole culture of it is collapsing for Labour right now. Out of touch, ivory towered, clueless about reality and an electorate too pissed off to speak to them.

They are arguing for young girls, mostly with autism to be put on a pathway that includes mutilation of their bodies.
Stuff like this shouldn't shock you. The goal is men to have access to women's private space and for it to be a positive thing.

And I'll add to this, politicians of the left and right have no humanity left to see harm caused to others for this goal as wrong.

The goal is men to have access to women's private space and for it to be a positive thing.

It is MRA

It is a policy of putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

Which is strangley appropriate for the present-day Labour Party.

This just further demonstrates she is just listening to one side of the debate.

In fact, she's transparently not debating, despite what she says. She's made her mind up (had it made up) and been brainwashed into thinking that any dissent is to be lumped in as "transphobic".

The TRAs have really done their job with no debate and bigot I'll say that for them.

Just faintly hoping that she has responded like this because she knows she's on a losing wicket. And trying to look at this as sunlight.

These people are seriously arguing that it is more humane, more just, to keep a TW in solitary confinement for years in the female estate than to keep a TW prisoner in a wing for vulnerable males in the male estate.

They are arguing for young girls, mostly with autism to be put on a pathway that includes mutilation of their bodies.
Stuff like this shouldn't shock you. The goal is men to have access to women's private space and for it to be a positive thing.

I also see argument that if the violent TW prisoner poses a problem for women inmates, the solution is to keep the TW prisoner in the women’s estate but in solitary confinement.

Without any recognition AT ALL that solitary confinement has been recognised by prison reformists as torture, in that it can break down a person’s mental state in a very short time, sometimes as little as two weeks.

These people are seriously arguing that it is more humane, more just, to keep a TW in solitary confinement for years in the female estate than to keep a TW prisoner in a wing for vulnerable males in the male estate.

Blinded by ideology, they are both cruel and wrong.

Just been watching the fragrant Dr Janina Ramirez on the TV talking about the King of France who wouldn't let his doctors touch him because he thought he was made of glass.

What with being King and all, he got his way.

Does nandy actually believe this "Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

And if so does she apply this to any other area of psychiatry?

And it is work

If only them that signed pledges and talked about the most marginlised actually did even half the work you did

Thanks rowan. Your work here gives me much reading anf understanding

It’s interesting how the standard answer to the safeguarding problem of allowing men into women’s refuges/prisons etc is always ‘if there’s a problem we’ll deal with it – there are procedures in place to stop wrongdoing by anyone.’ And yet, the fact that this (now infamous) young constituent is being bullied in school seems to be proof that the denial of biological reality should be enshrined in law.

Why not tackle the bullying?