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

See hearache,
others will have read your supposedly clever come back and realise you never addressed the other questions and issues raised in the post.

Are they too inconvenient?

While you are monstering Baroness Nicholson, you like to ignore (and the others who popped on the thread) the spokespeople of
Stonewall and their
well published views. People who are influencing policies of many of the UK organisations.

Just so you remember, I brought three to your attention:

Peter Tatchell

Jane Fae

and Nancy Kelley.

And remember the quotes directly from transitioned males ?

Fully comfortable with them?

Your monstering of Baroness Nicholson has been repeated over different threads. You keep repeating the same old trope from the Pink news. With no actual original source links with any type of critical thinking applied.

So, please answer the question and your lack of answer will be considered as important as your answer.

Are you happy with 100% of what Peter Tatchell, Jane Fae and Nancy Kelley have said in the media?

hearache posted at 13.07: ' I actually think the idea that it is "unnatural" for children to be raised two women is one of the most misogynistic things I have ever heard in my life. Lesbian mothers are great and they don't need a penis to bring up happy, healthy and loved children. The Baroness's beliefs are bad children. '

So, let's go back a couple of pages to yet answer set of ignored questions:

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.

And yes. Lesbian mothers ARE great. But I would like you to start putting links where you narrow visioned and narrowly defined bravado continues to fail to convince people . Lesbian mothers ARE great. Is that arrangement a 'greater' outcome for that child, than a child having some kind of knowledge and contact with their biological father as well?

While you can vilify with your narrow view point, I and others will take a feminist view point on how these arrangements impact that child all the way through their lives. There are ways to make these arrangements work. But were those arrangements common when the Baroness made those comments? What was known at the time she made those comments?

So, some proof of that please. Otherwise, you are just repeating the same old trope.

Just going to leave this post here for readers.

I don't think I need to say anything more about it. This post speaks for itself and poster's reading comprehension when they are more determined to celebrate than to actually comprehend.

This thread was started because Ben Cooper became an object of admiration. @Helleofabore you are following is his footsteps. Thank you for your research. 👏👏👏

OP: The Times has named Ben Cooper Lawyer of the Week (and he even mentions Mumsnet).
Hearach: But, but, but … Emma Nicholson is a bigot!

"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."

Yes she has always been upfront that she believes LGBT equality undermines the rights of women and children.

Hence why she does not want an equal age of consent for gay and straight sex, believes two women getting married "degrades" women and believes lesbian families and "unnatural". No matter where her concern comes from she is still a homophobic bigot.

P.S. I actually think the idea that it is "unnatural" for children to be raised two women is one of the most misogynistic things I have ever heard in my life. Lesbian mothers are great and they don't need a penis to bring up happy, healthy and loved children. The Baroness's beliefs are bad children.

Helleofabore, you self-identified as a non-expert on LGBT issues. I am merely correcting your mistakes.

SEXUAL ACTS BETWEEN MEN
'.—(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 "sixteen".

Emma Nicholson voted in the No lobby. She did so because she is a bigot.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1994-02-21/debates/2cff3a37-1689-4247-bfa8-3f2f3d5da45e/AmendmentOfLawRelatingTo

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!

"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.

"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 Errol... Ben had a lovely wren who used to get quite loud in his garden at times.

It became known as his 'support wren' because it was often there and was a calming influence to the already calming voice and persona of Ben.

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

I'm pretty sure most of us were celebrating his win (Bailey v her employer) , and were perfectly happy with the outcome re stonewall - a Pyrrhic victory which served to expose more or their weaknesses.

Now ... I didn't follow the actual case threads in detail so can someone please explain to me wtf it is about a wren?

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.