To be shocked that this is happening in Britain in 2018?

[Spending2muchtimeonMN]

Masked men try to prevent women from attending a lawful, public meeting to discuss the impact of proposed changes to the law on women's rights:

www.facebook.com/julie.bindel/videos/pcb.10160135970780316/10160135907955316

Posh kids from University of West England. Not bright enough to get into Bristol University.

I really want to know why the police just didn’t escort JB et al. into the room. There were police cars outside - where were the officers?

If there was no violence Bertrand, then why would a police escort be needed?

Exactly Pencil. How is it possible to argue that antifa tactics are necessary at a meeting with refreshments and Q&A?

I've watched the video and I've been to PTA meetings at my children's primary school that were less polite.

(The video of the actual meeting that is!)

Is there anyone on this thread who would be happy that their children behaved in such a manner?

Because the women were being prevented from entering the building. They would have had to push their way past the protesters who were blocking the stairway.

They would have had to push their way past the protesters who were blocking the stairway.

If they'd bulldozed their way through - the only way to get up the stairs - they'd have been accused of using actual violence. As usual, women can't win.

Is there anyone on this thread who would be happy that their children behaved in such a manner?

Not sure what I would be more cross about - lack of respect for freedom of speech or the stupidity of arsing about on stairs.

If anyone related to me behaved that way they'd be getting an earful.

They did that in the end though and were subjected to being held around the waist and having to step over people who were sitting down who refused to move. This is about going up steep stairs to go to a public meeting.

The women had already entered the building, some had to go back out.

When TW assaulted Maria Maclachlan at Speakers Corner the first contact was when .

At TW's trial the judge said - "I conclude all three incidents in which there was physical contact did amount to assault,"

I would tell them that if they did it again they would be reported to the police. I do not tolerate that sort of behaviour, but as BertrandRussell knows, I do allow for someone getting something wrong - though I may not be so sympathetic post adulthood.

Yes the police's failure to act was shocking. They should have ensured the entrance was clear and safe to enter at all times. That stairwell looked full of people. If something had kicked off and someone fell or was pushed a lot of people could have been hurt.

Juells I think that was the tactic, tbh. They wanted to provoke the women attending into doing something physical, which they could then describe as violent. I think Julie Bindel's too wise to fall for a trick like that though.
The people holding the meeting are very sensible to film everything, no wonder the 'activists' hate it and try to take the cameras. They can't make up lies about violent incidents occurring when they haven't.

On top of the million other issues with the behavior at that event - fire regulations, what are those? Surely the police could have moved the people blocking the stairs on for that reason alone.

(Kind of in the vein of Al Capone being nicked for tax evasion in the end.)

Wtf are the police doing!

@CadyHeron

Please read my opinions again. Maybe slowly.

I am not for a second saying that intimidation was acceptable (entirely the opposite) and am saying that despite being less susceptible to intimidation that most women, I would have left.

All men I know with the same training would have left too.

That doesn't mean it was Ok. Does that help at all?

@merrymouse

"What kind of a meeting?"

God hates fags.
We should arm teachers.
Hitler had some good ideas.

etc

I went to lengths earlier to say that I don't think that this meeting and those examples are the same but they certainly give an idea of when I would happily stand by those disrupting a meeting.

"Why would you interfere with somebody's legal right to freedom of expression?"

Because some people don't deserve it. We also don't have that much freedom in the UK. Not as much as people like to think. I feel like we've basically got it right but I also don't think that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want wherever they want.

Despite being a confident and sometime gobby fucker, I'm very glad I don't need to make the decision about what should and shouldn't be allowed.

"Some people disagreed with you? Surely the answer is to report anything that breaks the rules of the site , either agree or disagree with other posters, and back up your opinion with argument?"

I have a long list of deleted transphobic posts (as MN quote the deleted post when they email and agree with your report) but that benefits no one.

I have back up my opinions to the best of my ability and have enjoyed engaging posters in the same manner they have engaged with me. I wouldn't bother on the feminism boards and think that me being there could legitimately be seen as goady because no matter how sincere my opinions, it's still pointless being there. AIBU expects more varied replies.

re. your last post (Sun 22-Apr-18 14:06:57)

I think that defining a woman is difficult without offending one group. I have no issue with offending people when I know I'm correct but tread carefully when I'm unsure.

I think that gender is innate and that nature plays a large role. Therefore, it's entirely likely that people are born into the wrong body; the brain doesn't match the gonad.

Nonsense about a "lived experience" doesn't sway me as it's contrary to 'social construct' arguments. I am as much a woman as you (I assume) although I had amazing parents who encouraged me despite wanting to do typically boy stuff. My father bought me sanpro without a second thought. He also helped me rebuild the engine in my first bike and didn't tell my mother when I rolled my Golf.

My view boils down to thinking self-ID will have little to no effect on anyone. Extremists on both sides look like twats. This is a view that works in most situations. Can you think of a radical view where the holder isn't a moron?

@summerinthecountry

"The main boards on MN are not a hot bed of terfs or whatever"

Frequently untrue hence all the calls for a special 'trans board".

"There is certainly no ill feeling on our part but I do wish to discuss this problem openly and freely, although this may not suit your narrative that we are all terfs!"

As I said, I see TERF used in MN usernames far more than I ever have as a pejorative term.

I don't really have a narrative.

There is a lot of ill-feeling on 'your' part. I would engage in this debate in real life but the MN feminism boards which are mostly anti-trans at the moment is not somewhere you can debate. It's tErf with extra emphasis on exclusionary.

Pick a thread and see if you can spot a dissenting voice. If you can, see what happens.

"Otherwise I am pretty sure this will end very badly for you."

Who do you think I am?

I'm a pretty apathetic floating voter - Tory leaning. A straight, white, intelligent, upper-middle class woman who married an low-upper class white man (his father has a title). Two quite typical children; an older girl, younger boy.

I have no agenda. Nothing to gain or lose. I think I am quite balanced and considered.

If you read my replies, I haven't once said that these protesters were in the right or that their behavior was acceptable.

@MsMcWoodle

"I see you too."

Still a fucking meaningless term though, isn't it.

@donquixotedelamancha

I take your point about "P-" (erring on the side of caution) and the same is true of the n- word but I would have happily stopped using TERF if anyone had said it was offensive. They haven't.

@Elendon

"Why would you have [removed yourself]"

Because of balanced assessment. I think I could have fought my way to the top of the stairs but if they did decide to escalate at least one person is likely to have been injured and there's a chance it could have been me. There's a chance all involved would be arrested. As the person who fought their way up the stairs, I would be in the wrong.

"Would you have assessed intimidation and possible violence by any chance?"

At the risk of being branded misogynistic, I've always been most nervous around drunk (and sober) women. Possible violence is always possible - the clue's in the name. There tends to be a build up where men are involved - as someone with training you can sense and control it and decide on appropriate action.

I've already said that the situation is intimidating. So is a police presence so I'm not too sure what that means exactly.

excuse the long post - written with several breaks

@sentmai

Hoping this isn't all feeling like a pile in to you - of course you're entitled to your opinion . Can I just point out that your comment Therefore, it's entirely likely that people are born into the wrong body would be seen as transphobic by some as they do not think that having male reproductive organs stops them from being a woman. That's really my issue with this whole debate.

I've had a long life with training in intimidation @sentMai

Your reply to me makes no sense given your previous stance. You do know they did make their way up the stairs and there are videos to support this - all very shocking.

What I take from your reply is that intimidation is indeed a perceived threat of violence and therefore violent.

Please read my opinions again. Maybe slowly. I am not for a second saying that intimidation was acceptable (entirely the opposite) and am saying that despite being less susceptible to intimidation that most women, I would have left.

Maybe you're the one who needs to re-read, slowly.
Total question dodged, by waffling.
You said that you would have left. Why is that? If they're not being intimidating/threatening violence at all? You said yourself "despite being less susceptible to intimidation than most women" (so sounds like you're not intimidated by them, then) you'd have still have left.
Why?
Do you mean, to be blunt, that they're just supposed to not meet up, do as they're told and go home?

Because of balanced assessment. I think I could have fought my way to the top of the stairs but if they did decide to escalate at least one person is likely to have been injured and there's a chance it could have been me. There's a chance all involved would be arrested. As the person who fought their way up the stairs, I would be in the wrong

Right, so here you are saying there IS a threat of violence. It is intimidation, you've just right here said so.
We're blocking your way, try to get past us to go about your business, you might get hurt.
Only way to not get hurt - go home.

Because some people don't deserve it.

Why would you be the arbitrator of who deserves freedom of speech?

If you think somebody has broken the law report them to the police.

I genuinely don't recall any masked protesters outside BNP meetings or stopping Nick Griffin getting into the QT studio

Similarly, I don't think that UKIP meetings have had groups of masked protesters trying to prevent attendees making it through the door

There have been some protesters in Guy Fawkes masks in Parliament Square on May Day in the past

There were masked prtestors when Jacob Rees-Mogg addressed the Conservative Students at UWE (wonder what overlap between this and the Bristol meeting there might have been?)

Masked protesters stormed a far-right meeting in London, though interestingly the venue defended the right to free speech (a possible candidate for future We Need to Talk meetings?)

@ParisUSM

I'm not invested enough to think it's a pile on and you don't seem like a twat but I mis-explained or you misunderstood my point.

I think 'person' is in the brain and therefore you can be a female in a male body and vice versa because there is such a thing as a gendered brain (from before birth).

@Elendon

No. I have been intimidated by the nicest people in the world (I didn't know that at the time) who happened to be close enough to me to have harmed me if they wanted and their size, tattoos, accent, clothing meant I was intimidated.

If intimidating = perceived threat of violence = violence then society has issues.

My BiL is 6'3". Very broad. Ex military. Loud and tall and confident. His very presence can be intimidating but to liken that to assault or violence is ridiculous.

A few years ago I was offended by an AIBU consensus (not my thread) that he should stop or cross the road if he was coincidentally following a woman on foot.

I think there's a subtle difference between intimidation, perceived threat and actual violence.

Self-defence can be reasonable force to a perceived threat - there's no need to wait to be hit first.

Violence is much more easily described although when words are brought into it, it seems more stupid difficult.

Intimidation is tricky as the intimidator doesn't need to do anything wrong to be intimidating, at least in the moral sense.

@CadyHeron

"ou said that you would have left. Why is that?"

Because either I or the protesters would have been hurt. It wasn't worth the chance of a fight.

"If they're not being intimidating/threatening violence at all? "

I've said several times that they were intimidating and that it wasn;t acceptable and isn't something I condone in this instance.

Even if I weren't intimidated (I think I said I would have been), I wouldn't have risked an escalation.

"Do you mean, to be blunt, that they're just supposed to not meet up, do as they're told and go home?"

No. Didn't the police remove the non-violent but potentially intimidating protesters and help the people take part in the 'conversation'?

That seems to me to be the right outcome.

No violence > No terrorism > No assault > A kerfuffle > Someone called someone a cunt > The group got together and applauded each other for being brave > the politician on tour got some publicity.

Shit! I've waffled a lot. All I can do is repeat myself. I don't like TERFs. I wouldn't have liked to be in the situation that the women attending the meeting were in. I don't agree with the protesters' actions although vaguely agree with the sentiment.