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

It's truly bizarre. She voted against equal marriage and wants gay men to be put in prison for having consensual sex with 20 year olds. An awful bigot.

They also said that Wickes supporting a ban on conversion therapy meant there could be legal action against the firm.

The LGB Alliance clearly only believes in free speech if you do not support trans rights.

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

If you believe that then you'll believe me when I tell you that Margaret Thatcher was a great champion of the trade union movement.

Ok no woman has admitted to me she was ever or is in that moment a prostitute.

Having said that, most women I know through work and so I know what their day job is, if they get up to prostituting themselves on a night or weekends well hell I hope they make sure their kids are looked after first.

How do you know you've never met a prostitute?

I have very strong opinions on child safeguarding, prostitution, misogyny, healthcare for women, and more
Yet my children are now adults, I've never met a prostitute, I suffer much less misogyny now than in the past as I'm old and invisible now, I require very little healthcare and haven't needed much in the last 50 years.
Still very strong opinions, that will not be ignored, shouted down, or traduced.
Should I not have these opinion, be allowed to Express these opinions just because it was never or is no longer an actual issue in my real life?

And isn't it strange how a view from 1995 is being used to discredit her voice. When there is a whole section of Stonewall dedicated to educate people and perhaps she has been 'educated' since 1995.

Yet some Stonewall supporters are keen to use something which has not be explained past 'she was protested for not signing the UN declaration of tolerance' to demonise her giving no consideration that she has been educated by Stonewall since?

The fact is, there is little beyond this single reference:

1995. Emma Nicholson Action.
A zap against the conservative MP Emma Nicholson, taking the form of a tea party-cum-protest on the lawn of her Devon fastness. She had refused to sign the UN Year of Tolerance declaration while it included sexual orientation.

on Lesbian Avengers website (which Sarah told me to DYOR, so I did). There could be some very valid reasons why she did not wish to sign the declaration. There could be that there is no reason that stands up to today's framing. Who knows?

Only a group who accepts readily what social media influencers say without applying their own critical thinking skills and looking for original source information seems to be one trying to shut down discussion. And declaring that if people are 'not experts' that they should STFU, yet are posting on a feminist board....

How very tolerant this group of supporters are showing themselves to be yet again?

Another great live demonstration. Thank you.

I have been asking for information actually and nothing is forthcoming.

And I agree, some lesbians have been protesting 'her'. I am trying to understand why and asking for links with clear reasons.

Do you have anything more than your attempt to shame me for asking, thisweek? Anything else to add?

I am also pointing out that this is actually a distraction again from the topic at hand which is Ben Cooper. And loosely Stonewall.

I have also asked if those willing to point out issues with Emma Nicholson are very comfortable with spokespersons from Stonewall and every single quote those spokespeople have made. As that seems only fair.

@Helleofabore

For someone who says themselves that they are 'not an expert in LGBT matters' you've got quite a cheek telling the lesbians who have been protesting at and angry with Emma Nicolson since the 90's that they got her all wrong.

Oh. Righto!

Another who cannot articulate their accusations but will denigrate a woman who has a long history in advocating for all females, women and girls.

And 1995 ... have you contacted the Baroness to discuss why she wouldn't sign the declaration? Or are you just happy to take that single line on the Lesbian Avengers that has no other information and make that decision?

Anything else you want to suggest?

Because the Baroness seems to be supportive of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, along with trans people, in her latest communications.

DYOR

Apart from what has been said above already Google 'Emma Nicholson' & 'Lesbian Avengers'

By the way ... any comment on Peter Tatchell's views on 'intergenerational' sex, Jane Fae and Nancy Kelley's comment about Lesbians?

Please post your evidence of the Baroness' views? Let's have a look at it.

Watching people trying to spin Baroness Nicolson's long history of homophobia never gets unfunny.

Thanks everyone for the DMs and the posts. & for you all!

@Helleofabore Clearly Ben Cooper is a God, but, on this thread, you're looking rather saintly too.

Of course, don't let's forget about Nancy Kelley's statement about lesbian's prejudices which we have never yet received acknowledgement about from some posters who like to continue to ignore that comment.

“If you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it’s worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.”

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

Plus

Wasn't Jane Fae at one stage doing some work with Stonewall? Maybe even on helping shape the Girl Guiding policy - or was that not verified? happy to be corrected on this one (I mean really happy to be corrected!)

Let's see now.

Jane Fae who has campaigned for the legalisation of extreme porn and the lowering of the age of porn actors to 16. Who tweeted on 26/3/2018:

Most murder is boring, pedestrian, even accidental stuff.

Somewhere between a third and a half result from too much alcohol. A high proportion are domestic violence "gone wrong". A blow struck one time too
many: an egg-shell skull.

And then has made other misogynist comments.

I have just been pulling statements from actual Stonewall representatives here. Not just anyone. I haven't even looked in that treasure trove from Allison's trial at statements made by Stonewall management and those actively involved in supporting Stonewall.

But if Hearache wants to continue to push this barrel of 'bad takes', then I am not alone in having access to the many Stonewall staff, management and allies and their comments too.

What does it achieve?
Nothing.
Because it is an ad hominem tactic and not actually addressing the topic. Because some posters cannot actually come up with a convincing argument or evidence to support their claims. That is why they rely on emotional manipulation. As if we haven't pointed it out on this thread already.

Stonewall's repetitional damage as being shown by instance after instance of their advice being taken and applied to the detriment of the organisation implementing the guidance. And of Stonewall's actions themselves. Or of Stonewall now being completing ignored and judged as an organisation to be avoided.

Needmoresleep

Yes. That PSCO is a little behind the times. Stonewall zealots are no longer telling people to 'educate' themselves.

The issue is when people pull one thread, the whole lot unravels. Educating the public to them does not mean go and find out all you can from wide and varied sources and then make up your mind....

That is exactly what they don't want.

Just to be clear for those who may think that hearache is acting with any good faith at all.

LGB Alliance tweeted about Wickes banners pictured 'No LGB without the T' and a 'ban conversion therapy for ALL'.

They tweeted:

We must assume that Wickes have not understood the significance of this slogan. They cannot seriously believe that lesbians, gay men and bisexuals may not organise in our own interests without the permission of trans people.

twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1556636736817700864?s=20&t=_H9PC0cpYsAGPmhBCtTRew

It is clearly referring to their political support, like Hearache's to the move to suppress alternative LGB groups and organisations that do not centre the 'T'.

Hearache's post of ' I guess I disagree with the LGB Alliance on this issue who seem to think that it's okay to sue a company for being in favour of a ban on conversion therapy. So much for a free society! ', is just another attempt to spread misinformation.

The LGB Alliance (who I assume you refer to) are not "an organization that focuses on LGB people and puts their needs first though".

I was referring to any organisation that represents the L or the G or the B separately or together and without centring any other letter and certainly focusing on the sexual orientation of their members....

But it seems to me that you are rather obsessed with LGB Alliance. It really does rankle that you cannot control other people who are part of the LGB community and don't do what you want. You really are a great ambassador for Stonewall, I would say that they lucked out when they found you.

They were launched not to promote LGB rights but to oppose trans rights or "gender extremism" as Allison Bailey calls it:

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1186767223555272719?s=20

Let's have a look at that tweet, shall we?

*This is an historic moment for the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual movement.
LGB Alliance launched in London tonight, and we mean business.
Spread the word, gender extremism is about to meet its match.^
11:12 PM · Oct 22, 2019

Meaning that a group of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people have felt that Stonewall no longer represented them and that they felt the reason for that was the redefining their sexual orientation to be centring 'gender' and not the 'sex' of the people who fit that sexual orientation.

And, you think that this tweet is some kind of 'gotcha'?

They rarely campaign on LGB issues e.g. They didn't even put out a tweet to celebrate lesbians getting free IVF the other day.

They do campaign for LGB issues. They also were founded by lesbians. Females. Who, by nature of being female, also realise that there is that other side of 'getting free IVF' that you don't seem to be able to acknowledge even though it was explained to you pages ago.

You know, that there is another probably more greater concern about fertility equality - that of hyper stimulating the eggs of women and even very young adults to 'harvest' eggs for IVF use, plus the demand to have access to surrogates.

You know, the issues that exploit females and have huge potential to cause females harm. And remember, I also pointed out that the children of donor conception and surrogacy are raising ethical alarms about this too.

But, this is yet another example of an activist who simply cannot acknowledge that there is quite often a harmful side to females to the demands of Stonewall.

And they host people who actively oppose LGB rights because they agree with them on trans rights e.g. Baroness Nicholson who thinks lesbians getting married "degrades women" and thinks two women having kids is "neither normal nor natural". She also wanted gay men who have consensual sex with 20 year-old men to be chucked in jail.

And the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues. You cannot have it both ways hearache.

Plus, again, you don't seem to ever be able to understand how good and robust acts are passed through the Westminster system. If any MP can see a conflict with another group for a bill that is before them and to be voted on, they have to feel certain that protections are in place to protect those people.

In the case of the Baroness, she felt that the protections of women and children were being risked in the wording of that particular bill. And she has been working to protect women and children since the 1980s and has worked with the UN and the EU courts to protect women and children. So, she couldn't support that particular wording of the act.

Let's have another look at the tweet you refer to. The 'degrading one'.

twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1270703409931452416?s=20&t=CSagMWOpQkNQxFn-BjV0OQ

Because I foresaw (with some justification) that it would lead to degrading the status of women and of girls. This as we now see has happened and is continuing, so my sex are as a binary class in difficult now.

So, you have put a little bit of your own twist there, as usual.

She was discussing the protections of women and girls in conjunction with the wording of a particular bill that was being voted on.

And as far as the 'neither normal nor natural', to be clear, two people of the same sex cannot biologically have children. Or are you saying that they can? And are you saying that a family where the children have an active relationship with BOTH biological parents who care for the wellbeing of those children is not better than a family where the children do not know one of their biological parents, even if they are loved and cared for by the people, one of which may be a biological parent, they live with?

Can you please provide proof of this? Because that is not what we are hearing from those children who are now adults of families where they did not and may still not know, one or both of their biological parents.

I look forward to seeing that proof. Otherwise, you have repeated your slurs against Baroness Nicholson from Pink New. It is getting repetitive, but hey, I am sure someone reading along here will have not come across this attempt of yours before.

So, are you really happy with everything previously said and advocated for by actual spokespeople of Stonewall:

Peter Tatchell .... are you really comfortable about his writings on paedophilia? Really? Shall we post them for all the readers to see.

Why are you comfortable with Peter Tatchell being a spokesperson for Stonewall?

Shall I continue? We have plenty of examples collected here on MN.

Or shall I simply repost the quotes from actual transitioned males. You saw them on another thread. I am very happy to do this if it is helpful to make you actually start thinking about just where your constant attempt to discredit people via ad hominem attacks.

And attempts to discredit organisations via totalitarian tactics and misrepresentation.

Now, this. Yet again.

As someone who is "not an expert" on LGBT issues I do not expect you to know this but the above are all examples of homophobia.

Yes, attempting to monster LGB Alliance the way you are probably does speak of homophobia on your part. Posters have been through this with you on thread after thread by now. Lesbians and bisexual people have explained that they want no part in supporting a group that redefines their sexual orientation.

So... good pick up on that. You may well have been very homophobic in your efforts there.

Thank you for explaining.

No. They are merely pointing out that the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people exist and are a different thing to the rights of trans people.
It's certainly a good thing that trans people now have legal protection against discrimination and harassment but to say that the rights related to sexual orientation are in any way dependent on these is simply wrong and unhelpful.

They are trying to bully Wickes for the temerity of being in favour of trans rights. It's almost as if they do not believe in free speech.

I guess I disagree with the LGB Alliance on this issue who seem to think that it's okay to sue a company for being in favour of a ban on conversion therapy. So much for a free society!

Thats not what that tweet says though. It's merely warning that they may be in danger of breaching the EA, which would leave them open to legal action, and seems to be in relation to the poster on the left rather than the one on the right.

Personally I am in favour of free speech and think the police have no business policing the views of citizens.

I guess I disagree with the LGB Alliance on this issue who seem to think that it's okay to sue a company for being in favour of a ban on conversion therapy. So much for a free society!