Baroness Nicholson on Regent Street flags

Why don’t you have more Prosecco @antifascist

You keep mentioning it. Go on, treat yourself!

Baroness Nichsolson's lifelong commitment to campaign against abortion rights and equality for lesbians and gays are also "ascertainable, checkable facts"which some posters on here seem to consider irrelevant.

people of all genders drink prosecco and visit stormfront.

She is very good at making clear points, and they're all ascertainable, checkable facts.

If you expect anyone to take you seriously on here, you really need to stop with the sexist tropes.

Don't you have any mates to be out with on a Friday night?

In what way is referring to the fact that Baroness Nicholson sponsored a Private Members' Bill called "the Abortion (Foetus Protection) Bill " which was described as "A Bill to lower the gestational time limit for abortion to 12 weeks" taking a statement out of context?

Nicholson has been consistently anti abortion, anti gay and anti lesbian throughout her political career.

Some people who frequent this forum wish to portray her as in some way supportive of women's rights and lesbian and gay rights although she is nothing of the kind.

They are misrepresenting her entire political career because they are supportive of her reactionary agenda

Thank you for the link. Thats a very clear letter, hopefully they reply back just as clearly.

Fucksake … if I’m gonna hang around MN, I’m really gonna have to get on Twitter. <Sigh> 😕

Deliberately taking statements out of context, name calling and refusing to argue the actual points whilst using the dead cat tactic is tiresome and worth ignoring.

It another case of debate the person, not the argument.

It's rather ironic that someone is going on about supporting trans rights et al, and criticises censorship and eradication of lesbians. Oh and the TRAs are trying to hijack the abortion debate too.

I think they can probably see too why instead of addressing the actual content of the letter there is frantic attempts to smear a woman with a sterling career in actual human rights, particularly children's, in an attempt to shut up a conversation they're finding unhelpful to a political agenda.

Sunlight. Jolly good thing all round.

I'm sure most users of this forum can see why a small group who frequently post links from right wing websites would want to represent Nicholson as some kind of heroine of the lesbian and gay movement when in fact she has shown nothing but contempt for lesbians and gays and for women's fertility rights throughout her political career.

She's an awesome woman.

I’m equally opposed to flag shagging in all its forms.

I don't think I've seen anyone claim that, frankly I don't care if someone has. I've seen a fair few tra flamed by their fellows for being insufficiently pure. Whaddaya know neither side has a hive mind.

Neither are Stonewall.

So you find trans people and their supporters more noxious than those who campaign to limit abortion rights - supported section 28 and don't believe lesbians should be allowed to co-parent.

Of course it's your right to believe all of that- just don't try and convince yourself or anyone else that Nicholson is a long running supporter of Lesbian and gay rights.

Now balance that with everything else that this woman has done in a lifetime of serving children's rights and safety.

I'm sure her reasons for voting as such, in the light of this lifetime of experience and service, would be interesting to listen to. I might not agree with them, but whatever.

And she is one of the few sane people mentioning that these flags being shoved everywhere represent a very dodgy and troubling agenda and are in fact now a false flag of a political movement busy suppressing and leading the harassment and intimidation of some of those they claim to represent. Oh and removing women and children's rights. Without democratic mandate or votes. Or that kind of thing.

So sorry, I won't be joining you in your purity spiral.

people can agree on some things while disagreeing on others- and it therefore depends what you think is most important.

It really doesn't. I cheer on Zelensky against the Russians while knowing he's deeply flawed. Are there any political figures who aren't? MLK? Che Guevara? Malcolm X? Aung San Suu Kyi? Mother Teresa FFS. None pass the purity test. The only people who do are people who only exist online, not actual people who affect change.

people can agree on some things while disagreeing on others- and it therefore depends what you think is most important.

if you find yourself cheering on someone who dispproves of lesbians as parents,approved of section 28 and wants to severely restrict abortion rights then maybe there's something wrong with your priorities.

Oh look, here comes Antifascist to tell us silly women that our allies in the fight for single-sex rights and against female erasure are very very bad people.

Antifa, I know this is a big, complex thought, but could you give it a try? It’s that people can agree on some things while disagreeing on others. Therefore we can welcome their actions that support our cause, even if we oppose their actions that we disapprove of.

If people who keep linking to far right websites were trying to convince me that a Conservative Baroness who voted against the repeal of Section 28 and wants to vastly limit abortion rights is pro Lesbian and Gay or pro women's rights I would think i was being taken for a fool.

More prosecco?