Eternal reunion collapses after disagreements over playing Pride.

You are professing a "might is right" or manifest destiny view. It reminds me of the men baying outside feminist meetings who think it's a gotcha that they're afraid. And then frame the women having to leave by a back entrance as proof that they are wrong and ashamed.

You are coming close to justifying the mvawag that underpins the shaming and cancellation of women who think that sex matters.

That’s an opinion though. You’re perfectly entitled to it, but people are presenting theirs as fact.

Well you’re either confused, or wilfully ignorant about the difference between “explained” and “argued”. Which is it?

Are you ok? You asked a question, more than one actually. I answered.

WomanStanley if anyone on this thread has displayed wilful ignorance, it's you. Many of us have explained (and in many ways) why we feel it was wrong for Louise to publish the statement she did.

I think you're the one who is being wilfully ignorant here.

It's patently obvious why Louise shouldn't have brought the reason for her disagreement with Easther and Vernie to the attention of an angry mob.

Because it should be up to them to explain their own views if they feel safe to do so.

Safety is the reason.

What has been done has been a form of work place bullying. They should absolutely be able to make such an announcement for themselves. However, you only have to look at women who have even just questioned the use of puberty blockers, such as Roisin Murphy, to see that this has a detrimental impact for having a view that is actually reasonable. There are plenty of lesbian, gay and bisexual people who feel that their political needs have been overshadowed. Maybe you have missed the significant reaction to those people's declarations?

Why would any person open their colleagues up to such detriment for holding the view that has been so far expressed by that agent?

Well you’re either confused, or wilfully ignorant about the difference between “explained” and “argued”. Which is it?

Because the people who are threatening their safety and welfare are in the wrong.

Just like pretty much all people who threaten other people's safety and welfare.

I'm not the confused one here. You asked the question.

Let's imagine for one moment that Pride was just for LGB people and Easther and Vernie had said they did not wish to perform at these events because the believe that homosexuality is a sin.

If Louise had reached out to her gay fans and said, "Guys, so sorry Eternal will not be performing at Pride. I would have loved to perform for you guys but unfortunately a couple of band members feel it is not in accordance with their religious beliefs. I am hugely disappointed about this and will always love and support the LGB community."

What would the likely consequences have been?

I suspect there would have been a mild stir on Twitter with people saying things like, "What a shame. Bigotry will not win."

Easther and Vernie might well have been roundly criticised, but that probably would have been all that happened, because as far as I am aware the LGB community does not have form for being aggressive and violent towards people who for whatever reason do not support them.

Not so with trans activism.

It is entirely plausible that Louise's comments might result in, for example, an organised campaign to have Easther and Vernie cancelled, dropped by their agent/publisher/record label/whatever they might have going on these days, reports made to the police alleging a "non hate crime incident", people finding and publishing their addresses online, people standing outside their homes where they live with their children holding placards and shouting aggressively, people sending rape and death threats, and various other intimidation tactics.

These things are plausible because they are all things trans activists have done to women who disagree with them.

If Louise knows that this is how some trans activists choose to behave and she dropped Easther and Vernie in it anyway, that is despicable.

If she doesn't know that this is how some trans activists choose to behave then she needs to better inform herself about this particular political bandwagon before jumping on it. A good start might have been to actually ask Easther and Vernie what it is about the TQ+ community they object to.

It's perfectly relevant to juxtapose reasons why a band might not reform.

The point is that making an issue of this reason was to LN's benefit. Which is why she did it.

Ergo it was a deliberate ploy to monetise a private discussion through a PR statement.

I think you’ve become confused between “explained” and “argued”.

Well we all have to stand up for our beliefs sometimes.

Given what has happened to Roisin Murphy, it is pretty clear that she and her publicist knew exactly what they were doing.

I am unimpressed but then I am not part of her target audience. (I knew a neighbour of her from her Jamie Rednapp days, and she was apparently pretty tedious and dull, and surprisingly small.) I guess we now have lots more Strictly type appearances. But then I am beginning to realise I am not part of the BBCs target audience either.

Why, if they’re supposedly right?

Because there is a section of society who harass, bully, cancel, threaten violence etc etc to those who disagree with them.

Message OF support

Is there any way to send a message or support to Easther and Vernie?

Why, if they’re supposedly right?

Because it will impact on their safety and welfare?

But according to you, they’re right. Why will they be unsafe?

Yes she's lost the opportunity to tour with the band but frankly they could have disagreed on anything from the set list, musical production, costumes, tour timescale etc.

Could have, but didn’t, so not relevant.

I didn’t say the public should know - but can you give any reasonable argument for why they shouldn’t? If these views are as laudable as you suggest, why should someone they’ve let down keep said views a secret for them?

They don’t appear to be saying anything. That’s odd, considering some people on here are trying to claim that Louise Nurding has made the whole thing up…

It does not affect her career whatsoever to continue as she has been doing and playing solo gigs to LGBT+ audiences.

Yes she's lost the opportunity to tour with the band but frankly they could have disagreed on anything from the set list, musical production, costumes, tour timescale etc. One reason is as good as another and none needed to be made public.

The only impact on her current career by releasing this statement is to benefit her by weaponising the position of her former band mates to secure additional positive PR wrt her target audience.

It's a pretty cynical move and one that may potentially benefit her in the short term, but could have longer term consequences given the public mood and the fact she's blown off for good the chance of the band ever reforming again.