Venice Expelled from KLPA (Ladies Pond(

@MidnightPondSwimmer back to the issue i noted that the KLPA is a stakeholder group which presumably was set up by the Local Authority, for the purpose of “consultation”

There is nothing to prevent those who have an interest in the use of the pond setting up a new group, along the same lines with a management committee agreement and statement of objectives. To assert a sex based amenity.

This group could then approach the LA for recognition as a stakeholder group and take things from there.

I have seen locally stakeholder groups for eg around public transport where there is more than one stakeholder group.

@Helleofabore tsk deleted wonder why?

For what it is worth PinkDog, we did get the Sheila clip posted (I am going to watch that later on) because you mentioned Venice had ejected someone. That looks like a good one to watch.

It's a shame you regret getting drawn in. FWIW I've appreciated your posts for their context and info.

I am not a name changer. I regret getting drawn into this. It came up on active.

Sometimes it is just not that hard, and doesn't require more than a glance. There are many different patterns. And again, this is a 'general' comment. Sometimes the pattern is simply the lack of clarity about a stance but taking the opportunity to scold a group and demonise or vilify the group at any opportunity. There is the occasion MRA on another board that I have realised is the same poster with the exact same arguments - but I have not seen him for a while.

"I am sure Venice would not allow the transactivists who she ejected from her meeting to attend again. They were not shouting abuse. They stood up and chanted Transwomen are Women."

Ok. Thanks again for the clarification.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate it.

I think generally that if a single activist stood up and had something to say, that wasn't abusive, but was within the topic under discussion that it is not a bad thing usually to have them say their speech. It can be a discussion starter if it is that kind of event. I have been to an event that was peacefully protested before and the people protesting waited until the speaker had finished and was taking questions. They then started their speech. It was not abusive and their signs were not abusive either. It also was relevant to the event. They were removed and people resumed listening to the speakers.

I think it can be done well. However, as soon as abuse is involved, then it is not appropriate for them to continue.

Sometimes at AGMs, protests are relevant and are needed. That is where I baulk at permanently banning members from protesting peacefully.

I am sure Venice would not allow the transactivists who she ejected from her meeting to attend again. They were not shouting abuse. They stood up and chanted Transwomen are Women.

This is perhaps where we differ.

I think that she most likely should have been ejected from that meeting after her protest However, it did look like it was at the end anyway. And I don't have a problem with people who want to legitimately peacefully protest at AGMs as long as it is peaceful and that the meeting can proceed.

In saying that, I don't believe that she should be permanently banned from future ones.

People shouting abuse at speakers. They are a different story.

Welcome to our world

Thank you for clarifying. Shouting abuse at a speaker just because you disagree is likely a situation where someone should be removed.

Thanks will have another look at that then apologies if I've misread

I accept it was a protest. I also think the group are right to exclude her from future meetings.

No. I am asking a question. We have just established that there are no links and that it now relies on personal anecdote. That is the excellent part. That this poster was actually there to give us the details.

I am asking questions to work out what happened, when and how because there is no linked evidence. Someone just saying 'this happened' and keeping it vague is not really providing support for a claim without further information.

And you seem to have a problem with it. No goalposts have moved. But you have just put words into my mouth.

Rather hypocritical of you as you say.

Exactly, not a protest, but abuse directed at a speaker. Having been to WNTT events and watched all the others online, this was the only one I could recall where any attendee had been ejected. I'm interested to see PinkDog's examples of meetings plural where attendees were also ejected.

@GoodAfternoonGoodEveningAndGoodnight you are exhausting to talk to.
Some transactivists who protested were removed from the meeting. I think Venice was right to get them removed.

Sorry, I got part way through but I haven't got time to go through this all the way to where Sheila has been called a cunt. Can you give me an indication of timing please?

And was that it, Kat Ponder got up and called Sheila a cunt and there was nothing else said? So it was not a protest, but someone directly abusing the main speaker?

You're missing the point though - it was "point to where she ejects people"
Someone does
Goalpost moves to " ah excellent" and seemingly "it's OK as it' someone I agree with being kicked out"

Again hypocrisy at its finest.

And again, Venice stood on a chair and shouted out her prepared speech after the vote and by this time everyone was standing ready to leave.

Can you point out how this was not a peaceful protest that actually allowed the event to happen and a protest by a person who was rightfully at the meeting to vote?

There is a real problem for women who need to raise their voice to be heard.

When men do it they might be described as having a booming voice, or exerting authority, or asserting themselves, whilst women get accused of shouting, screaming or being shrill.

Excellent. And why were people 'ejected'?

A meeting about access to single sex spaces with speakers.

For what and what was the meeting.