Ben Cooper QC - Lawyer of the Week (in the Times)

Yes, we went from celebrating his wins (Forstater) to lamenting his losses (Bailey)

You are both, absolutely right.... I shall pop over there and post the great links (and further information that they brought to this thread) from hearache there.

Especially as there’s another current thread specifically about Baroness Nicholson.

Interesting how a thread about Ben Cooper and how well he did has now become a thread about other things...

P.S. If Nigel Evans voted that way and hasn't changed his mind and said sorry, then yes he's as bigoted as the Baroness.

You mean, you don't know who else voted no? I mean.... 307 MP's voted no! Which other MPs are you going to target?

But you are here telling us all about it without even checking????

By the way, Nigel Evans voted NO on the amended law as well.

So... strangely... not all LGB people think alike. LGB people have as much diversity in opinion as other groups. And maybe, just maybe Nigel Evans had his own valid reason for voting NO?

How about instead of vilifying him, you ask him directly.

And Emma Nicholson, MP from Devon West, who had concerns about the abuse of minor males by adults, who had already been a director of Save the Children Foundation from 1974 to 1985, AND started at least one other charity for women and children by 1994, voted AYE.

Just to make this clear (I had to retype this long post as I lost it)...

Emma Nicholson had concerns about children, those males under the age of 18, as she judged in her long experience working with children, and with the knowledge from studies and papers and debate (because, there was such a thing back then) and she voted with her conscience at that time.

She also has not campaigned at all for the reversal of the act passed in 2000. By that time, she was no longer an MP and was not yet a member of the House of Lords.

Maybe people should actually ask her if she would have voted no to lowering the age to 16 by then, and ask her why if she answered that she would not have lowered that age?

She has always been very upfront about her concerns to make sure that no laws negatively impact the rights and safety of women and children. And on this, she has been remarkably reliable.

People can appreciate her efforts without agreeing 100% on everything she has said. The only people on here who cannot acknowledge that seem to be only interested in demonising and vilifying her.

But really... this is a thread about Ben Cooper. And he is a GOD!

So, maybe now you will tell us all who are reading and following along quite closely now:

Are you 100% comfortable in 100% of the views expressed by those actually representing Stonewall?

Peter Tatchell
Jane Fae
Nancy Kelley

Are you and other posters holding Stonewall's own spokespeople to the very same rigour as they are holding the Baroness?

I mean, I think I will have to post all the quotes for readers anyway, even if you don't bother answering. It will show quite clearly the hypocrisy being shown on this thread by hearache and some other posters who don't seem to understand the way purity spirals work.

"Prime Minister John Major and most of his Cabinet voted against reducing the age to 16 and in favor of the compromise plan. Mr. Major had left members of the governing Conservative Party free to vote as they wished on the issue, which was the subject of an emotional debate."

I refer you to the 'compromise' that your post has referred to. Ever had a look at it?

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1994-02-21/debates/e132c2dd-636e-40db-a7d0-25ac060cb788/AgeAtWhichHomosexualActsAreLawful

Here it is. Voted for 20 minutes or so AFTER the other one was voted down. What is the compromise I hear readers ask?

'.—(1) In section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), for "twenty-one" in both places where it occurs there is substituted "eighteen".

(2) In section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (homosexual offences), for "twenty-one" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "eighteen".

(3) This section shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.—[Sir Anthony Durant.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 427, Noes 162.

And Emma Nicholson, MP from Devon West, who had concerns about the abuse of minor males by adults, who had already been a director of Save the Children Foundation from 1974 to 1985, AND started at least one other charity for women and children by 1994, voted AYE.

Strange, isn't it? How that part of how Baroness Nicholson ' wants gay men to be put in prison for having consensual sex with 20 year olds ' gets ignored?

It became demonstratively false between 10.23 pm and 10.37 pm on Monday 21 February 1994.

Those of us who are actual experts on Westminster and LGBT matters

Ok. So let's say a bisexual male, for example, starts posting on a feminist site about LGBT matters but lacks the analytical skills to be able to present a logically consistent and balanced argument, one that considers events from a wide range of aspects from a wide range of perspectives, studies, academic papers and debates and not just their own narrow vision .... are they are expert?

Simply because they are a member of the LGB community?

Are they an expert on issues relating to homosexuality? or just bisexuality?

Are they an expert on trans issues because they know some trans people and support them?

I think we would like to know how expert is being defined here.

Oh dear…

Did you read what you posted?

I mean… really? Did you read it?

P.S. If Nigel Evans voted that way and hasn't changed his mind and said sorry, then yes he's as bigoted as the Baroness.

How can Nigel Evans be homophobic, he's gay.

I think that proves that @Helleofabore is the one that knows what they're talkng about here.

Unless you have proof that the Telegraph has reported her vote inaccurately you're merely engaged in wishful thinking. It is a matter of public record printed in a national newspaper than she voted for gay men who have consensual sex with 20 year olds to be sent to jail.

"But you never seem to acknowledge that you seem to not know how good, robust laws are created in Parliament. Or even how some votes are dictated by the party and MPs don't have the freedom to vote with their conscious sometimes."

It wasn't a whipped vote:

"Prime Minister John Major and most of his Cabinet voted against reducing the age to 16 and in favor of the compromise plan. Mr. Major had left members of the governing Conservative Party free to vote as they wished on the issue, which was the subject of an emotional debate."

www.nytimes.com/1994/02/23/world/british-gay-rights-groups-vow-to-fight-consent-age.html#:~:text=Prime%20Minister%20John%20Major%20and,favor%20of%20the%20compromise%20plan.

Those of us who are actual experts on Westminster and LGBT matters know that a). They are usually matters of conscious in Parliament and therefore MPs are not whipped B). Even if they are whipped then there is nothing to stop an MP rebelling against their party if they chose to put principle before their career.

P.S. If Nigel Evans voted that way and hasn't changed his mind and said sorry, then yes he's as bigoted as the Baroness.

But... hey.... thanks for posting that article.

And here in that article you posted it says this:

'Explaining her thinking behind that seminal 2013 vote for equal marital rights, she explains: “Marriage enshrines the mother as somebody of huge importance and value. “I’ve worked in many nations where motherhood is devalued, girls are degraded and where women’s rights, in that sense, are fairly negative. My concern, at the time, was that [equal marriage] might devalue motherhood and child protection. “Basically, I’m a backbencher Anglican. I was married myself and I always followed that creed. I’ve nothing against any same-sex marriages at all. I voted the other way. It’s not an issue – I forgot about it immediately after it was done.” '

Just for those in the back!

"I’ve worked in many nations where motherhood is devalued, girls are degraded and where women’s rights, in that sense, are fairly negative. My concern, at the time, was that [equal marriage] might devalue motherhood and child protection."

and

Not least when she, among the cross-party signatories to an amendment backed by Stonewall, the LGBT lobby group, allowed same-sex partnerships to be of equal value to same-sex marriage, but not identical.

She came at it from a position of protection women and children from the legal use of the word 'marriage'. Not from homophobia. Previously, she actively supported same-sex partnerships being strengthened. And that was a choice that she was free to make, by the way. She didn't have to do that.

Oh... look.... supporting LGB people.... even back then.

Another failed gotcha.

Did you read this at all?

Are you saying she lied to the Telegraph during this interview to make her record look even more homophobic than it is?

Please point out exactly where SHE commented that she voted against the lowering of the age of consent.

Plus the article also says this:

While she did vote against lowering the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 16 in 1994, she was in good company, with MPs Kenneth Clarke, Virginia Bottomley, Sebastian Coe, David Blunkett, Michael Portillo and Nigel Evans, the gay former deputy leader of the House, among those who also sided against equality.

Just to make it clear. Nigel Evans, the gay former deputy leader of the House, among those who also sided against equality.

Maybe you could pull up the records and show us that there was not a 'whip' dictating the voting on this one. Remember, I have posted on numerous threads now how political parties and MP vote through Acts of parliament.

But you never seem to acknowledge that you seem to not know how good, robust laws are created in Parliament. Or even how some votes are dictated by the party and MPs don't have the freedom to vote with their conscious sometimes.

And again... 1994!

She hasn't changed. She's still a homophobe.

"She did vote against lowering the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 16".

Are you saying she lied to the Telegraph during this interview to make her record look even more homophobic than it is?

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/lose-freedom-speech-end/

"She is supporting LGB issues through supporting and working with lesbians and bisexual females and also sometimes the wider LGB community."

No she's not, she doesn't thinks their marriages and "degrading" and their families not "natural" or "normal".

How about you provide the original source material for your claim hearache?

Could you point me towards this long history of LGB rights activism?

And just pointing out again the twisting that you continue to do hearache.

You quoted it correctly: "the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues".

But then you are attempting to twist it to me saying she has a long history of LGB rights activism.

Which is a dishonest representation of what I said.

She is 'supporting' issues around LGB people's needs, she is not a LGB activist. She is an activist for women and children. And that is very well documented. She is supporting LGB issues through supporting and working with lesbians and bisexual females and also sometimes the wider LGB community.

Your bad faith takes are really very obvious. And this was an example of overexaggeration of what was said to make it some kind of 'gotcha'. It is an example of polarised thinking. A cognitive distortion. It works to create this 'us and them' style of attack.

This polarised thinking allows no freedom. As I said upthread, it is totalitarian in style.

The demonising of the Baroness is also another cognitive distortion. By vilifying her, people don't have to engage with the substance of what she actually says and does.

It is all part of the purity spiral and funnily enough, purity spirals never work well for any person or group. No person or group is ever going to be 'pure' enough.

How about you drop the demonising and deal with the issues the Baroness raises individually and deal with the substance of the matter. And I mean, provide evidence of what she has said and done with full context, not cherry picked words and phrases. Actual original source material, not regurgitated misrepresentation.

Because you are really just spiralling in now.

You think the Baroness was right when she voted to send gay men to prison for having consensual sex with 20 year olds?

Actually, I think that the onus by now is on you to actually start answering questions asked pages ago.

"the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues"

Could you point me towards this long history of LGB rights activism?

I suspect you are mistaking wanting to throw gay men in jail for having consensual sex with 20-year-olds and not wanting lesbians to get married for LGB activism.