Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

I live in Rosie Duffields constituency. Just had local election door knock from labour party

341 replies

BadgerWadger · 22/02/2023 16:08

He asked what my main concerns were. I said my main issue was that i stood with Rosie and felt that Labour, as a party, from the top down, did not offer her enough support. And my main concern was womens safe spaces.

Man said, well, this is local elections and not about that, and that issue is more complicated than you think. What are your concerns, locally?

I said the local council is involved in issues to do with womens safe spaces. Like the womens refuges, the womans changing room at the local pool, etc. All spaces where biological men should not have access and that womens safe spaces was my main concern.

There followed a debate. And his stance is that its not that simple, i am being brainwashed by the right wing media, and that Rosie is in fact, (drumroll please...), mainly being supported by American right wing anti abortion groups.

Arrrrrghhhhhh. So that is where my local labour door knockers are at. Saying Rosies main core of support is American right wing anti abortion groups and i am being fooled by them. Silly, foolish, female me.

OP posts:
MmePoppySeedDefage · 24/02/2023 20:55

We seem to have gone off topic. The doings of the ICO are fascinating.

ijclark · 24/02/2023 12:55

It is recorded and where it happens repeatedly, sanctions are imposed. In terms of the previous MP, several constitutes complained about the same breach, and the local Conservative office was required to undergo data protection training and warned of future breaches. The ICO doesn’t tend to dispense major fines and punishments unless the breach is very significant. Nonetheless, it is a breach of a constituents data protection, which is a serious matter for obvious reasons.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/02/2023 12:52

They do when they take it seriously enough to sanction people, I think. But clearly they thought it was a minor slap on the wrist kind of thing.

ijclark · 24/02/2023 12:49

@SinnerBoy @Sazzasez I’m afraid the ICO don’t make these responses to complaints public, no.

ijclark · 24/02/2023 12:48

@Ereshkigalangcleg happy to oblige :)

I live in Rosie Duffields constituency. Just had local election door knock from labour party
TrombonesAreNotBones · 24/02/2023 12:18

Grin you're welcome!

MavisMcMinty · 24/02/2023 12:10

It is funny how an over-reach concludes in a topple, isn't it.

Ha ha, love this expression @TrombonesAreNotBones - nicked it for my collection, thanks!

Kucinghitam · 24/02/2023 09:53

How very interesting!

TrombonesAreNotBones · 24/02/2023 09:44

It is funny how an over-reach concludes in a topple, isn't it.

SinnerBoy · 24/02/2023 09:32

Sazzasez · Today 09:16

They would be public record, of course.

Yes, there seem to be many of them. A kind and generous soul would ascribe it to him making a simple mistake.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 24/02/2023 09:17

So the ICO "found in his favour" twice against two consecutive Canterbury MPs but it's not recorded anywhere? Fascinating.

Sazzasez · 24/02/2023 09:16

SinnerBoy · 24/02/2023 09:10

Interestingly, I can find no evidence of an ICO ruling for either Julian Brazier, nor Rosie Duffiled. Brazier has had a car crash reported and there's an ICO ruling against a company in Leeds, Brazier Consulting Services Ltd, but no mention of a Julian.

Yes, I googled that too.

They would be public record, of course.

SinnerBoy · 24/02/2023 09:12

The director, Edward James Brazier is not the MP.

SinnerBoy · 24/02/2023 09:10

Interestingly, I can find no evidence of an ICO ruling for either Julian Brazier, nor Rosie Duffiled. Brazier has had a car crash reported and there's an ICO ruling against a company in Leeds, Brazier Consulting Services Ltd, but no mention of a Julian.

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 24/02/2023 08:54

The latest posts from our visitor have very much confirmed my thoughts on the productiveness of engaging with them

ijclark · 24/02/2023 08:40

@Sazzasez and I didn’t “convince” myself. The ICO found in my favour both times. So the ICO convinced me that they breached my data rights :)

ijclark · 24/02/2023 08:39

@Sazzasez lets just say I’m more up to speed with data protection law than the average constituent ;)

Sazzasez · 24/02/2023 00:36

@ijclark to paraphrase lady Bracknell, to have convinced oneself that one MP breached your data privacy is a misfortune.

To have convinced yourself that two successive MPs breached your data privacy looks like carelessness.

Sazzasez · 24/02/2023 00:31

ijclark · 23/02/2023 19:48

Yes, and we know locally why her vote increased. It had very little to do with her.

Show quote history

It had something to do with you voting for her, clearly.

ijclark · 23/02/2023 22:57

@JanesLittleGirl tbf my experience is based on her vindictively revealing my personal data without my consent to someone who was attacking me. It’s pretty hard to take any MP seriously after they do that, or to have any positive thoughts towards them at all.

If it helps, I also pursued similar action over a data protection breach with her Tory predecessor. A more accurate reflection of my views is that I loathe all politicians and regardless of who it was, or the party they represented, I’d be giving them a hard time and watching their data protection habits like a hawk.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/02/2023 22:30

Totally agree with male entitlement having skewed the EA2010 - that's the only explanation for women's sex segregated spaces being an afterthought.

The issue as I see it is that the default common law presumption is that anyone can use any space. Previously it wasn't regulated by law that men didn't use women's spaces. It was a social contract. So the single sex exemptions are to carve out a bit of legal space where things need to be single sex for safety, privacy, dignity, fairness etc so men can't complain of "discrimination" when women, a disadvantaged group need to have their own stuff where men don't dominate. And sometimes vice versa.

JanesLittleGirl · 23/02/2023 22:28

ijclark · 23/02/2023 22:15

@JanesLittleGirl by your own logic, you’re saying everyone here has unresolved issues with the transgender community. Is this you coming out and calling everyone TERFs?

That would be by your logic, not mine. I'm worried that that you can see no good in RD and I feel that that cannot be healthy. I'm not a TERF, being neither trans-exlusionary nor a radical feminist.

ijclark · 23/02/2023 22:15

@JanesLittleGirl by your own logic, you’re saying everyone here has unresolved issues with the transgender community. Is this you coming out and calling everyone TERFs?

JanesLittleGirl · 23/02/2023 22:12

@ijclark Your posts suggest that you have major unresolved issues with Rosie Duffield. Have you considered professional assistance in finding resolution?

Grammarnut · 23/02/2023 21:35

IwantToRetire · 23/02/2023 20:23

VictorStrand · Today 18:28

I can see why someone who isn't a solicitor could try to interpret it that way but that isn't how the law or the Act works.

Dear oh dear - you are making this heavy weather of this.

I am saying that the male entitlement attitudes of those framing this Act influenced how they approached it.

I am saying that stupid male entitlement as an after thought wrote in something to protect women's rights because stupid male entitlement meant what that had initially drafted meant women's rights were lost so they had to create exemptions.

Had they not been those influenced by stupid male entitlement they would automatically have assumed that women's had rights, and then thought about how they could create exemptions for those with a GR that didn't impact on women's rights.

But no, thanks to stupid male entitlement they wrote it back to front.

You seem to be the only person who hasn't understood this.

Why else was there a court case to challenge what the meaning of the word woman was in relation to equal representation on company boards?

Why else is there a petition to change the wording of the EA to ensure that sex means sex?

Because stupid male entitlement had written what their mentality naturally assumes. That women are insignificant and dont need to be thought about.

That is how this situation arose.

What part of institutional sexism do you not understand?

Totally agree with male entitlement having skewed the EA2010 - that's the only explanation for women's sex segregated spaces being an afterthought. Trans rights should have been the exceptions, not women's. Back to front (I thought of a ruder way to say that then thought I'd get moderated out).