To think that releasing crickets at a gay rights conference, specifically to shut them down, should be considered a homophobic hate crime? Somehow these people are crowdfunding to do it AGAIN

[Zahariel]

The optics of having to fumigate a hall after gay people used it to speak about their rights being eroded should not be lost on anyone.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13950839/Trans-activists-release-bags-insects-LGB-Alliance-conference.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/suspected-trans-rights-activists-disrupt-lgba-conference-with-live-crickets/ar-AA1s9JHH

This is CLERLY A HATE CRIME - yet it's being reported as trans rights activists, not anti gay hate mongers, I can't really understand why not

Can you please be very specific about which results that you mean? Maybe you can give the dates the surveys were done since you are now claiming there is two surveys giving this 7% figure?

What do you believe the 7% figure represents?

They do it deliberately. There's a psychological effect known as the "illusion of truth". Pithily described in a phrase attributed to Goebbels:

"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".

They will never discuss honestly on these threads, that isn't what they are here for, they are here to spread deceit and trans activist propaganda.

It’s clear is the same survey. The transcripts are consistent. There was a conference, after which LGBA conducted a survey on all the people who had signed up to their mailing list, but they set it up badly so it gave data of limited value. They conducted a more robust survey in 2022. Both surveys have been discussed in legal proceedings.

I realise this is discussion of a frequently debunked myth is an attempt to derail the topic of whether an attack at a gathering of LGB people is homophobic or not - is this really the best you’ve got? Have you got anything to say on the incident itself, such as whether you think this is a legitimate form of protest or whether the young people involved were manipulated by adults with more sinister motives?

The impression given in court by the LGB Alliance was that it was a survey specifically to guage feelings about the conference:

"The only data we had at that time, which is why we followed up with a survey, was a very rough post-conference survey, asking people whether they enjoyed the conference, feedback for next year, what we can do better and how do you- Are you a lesbian, gay, etc., etc? I think it was a ridiculous figure which came out at 7%. "

'The only data that we had' gives a clear indication that this was limited data, (limited because it was just conference attendees is the very clear picture that will be taken by a reader or listener to this content) The scope is specified...it was sent out specifically about the conference. They then organised another survey as they didn't like the results of the post conference one.

It sounds like you are trying to fudge things now too.

Come on suggestions, I think you should clarify your accusations here. Are you saying that this which you have quoted:

"At that trial, representatives of several groups were asked to give rough percentages of the sort of demographic groupings. It wasn’t Allison Bailey who said anything about how many lesbians were in our organisation, so that was one error. It was our managing director, Kate Barker, who said that of our- The only data we had at that time, which is why we followed up with a survey, was a very rough post-conference survey, asking people whether they enjoyed the conference, feedback for next year, what we can do better and how do you- Are you a lesbian, gay, etc., etc? I think it was a ridiculous figure which came out at 7%. Mr Nicolson inflated it 20%. Again, that was a factual error. So two factual errors there but, at that time, the only evidence we had was that in response to the clunky post-conference survey, which had a very unprofessional approach to asking the question, we came up with that figure of 7%, which none of us can explain. It seems to have just been an error which is why we wanted to do a survey soon after that because we know, we know who our supporters are and what their commitment is to us, and why the vast majority of them are so keen to support a same sex attracted charity. "

Is talking about a difference survey than:

One particularly sticky myth is that only 7% of LGB Alliance supporters are lesbians. Here’s how that started:

We were delighted to be able to support Allison Bailey at her tribunal in the form of a witness statement to help prove that gender critical people are likely to be women and lesbians. As part of that we shared some numbers from our newsletter subscriber list.

We used Mailchimp to send our newsletter and when we set up our account in 2019 we added some subscriber questions which, as it turned out, provided us with ambiguous data.

We asked people whether they were lesbian, whether they were lesbian/gay or if they preferred not to say. The flaws being that we couldn’t tell whether those who ticked lesbian/gay were men or women and that none of the fields were compulsory – so many people skipped them altogether.

The result was that we had 4,502 newsletter subscribers and 316 ticked the box describing themselves as lesbian. That’s 7% of the total. A further 949 ticked the box lesbian/gay and 1,427 were unspecified or preferred not to say. Based on that data that means that between 316 (7%) and 2,376 (53%) of our subscribers were lesbian.

The 7% figure was used in court because it’s important that evidence is based on provable fact and it is a fact that, at a minimum, 7% of our subscribers were lesbians. However, common sense told us that that number was really much higher.

In August 2022 we commissioned a survey of our subscribers to help us plan to deliver services and support to LGB people. One of the questions we asked was about sexual orientation. That data showed that 34% are lesbian, 33% are gay men, 12% are bisexual, 20% are heterosexual and 1% preferred not to say. We are satisfied that this data is robust."

What other information do you have that shows that there was two surveys?

Yes they were. Straightforward homophobia however you try to dress it up. Grim - we’ve gone back to the bad old days of scumbags protesting against gay people. Anyone defending it should be absolutely ashamed.

And a mail chimp survey sent to their entire database can include a survey to gauge feeling about the conference.

What part of this are you missing?

It is entirely relevant to also include people who didn't go to the conference because they might have something to say about the conference such as why they, someone who is supportive enough to be on the database, did not go to the conference. It might be where it was held, it might be speakers, whatever. This information is also important to gather and analyse for future decisions.

It would be poor practice to not survey not only conference attendees but also prospective attendees.

So, why do you believe there were two surveys? Or is it your opinion that they should not have surveyed all their database? Because that would be a rather poor choice of action.

Yes, I would read that they are 2 different surveys with different aims: one was designed to guage post-conference attendee sentiment, what they can improve upon for next year etc. That is a standard thing, people give contact details as they arrive and agree to feedback after.

Another had a broader scope that went to their entire contact group.

Why would they send a survey which has a stated aim of finding out about people's feelings about a conference to people who did not attend?

Are you saying all 4502 newsletter subscribers also attended the conference?

I just think now, more than ever, that there has been fudging.

How can a person who did not attend a conference tell the organisers how they found it?

"It sounds like you are trying to fudge things now too."

mmm... sounds like projection to me. Or maybe your prejudice is somehow getting in the way of understanding that what you are quoting and what was officially stated by them don't seem to conflict the way you want to try to frame that it does.

Please take the time to explain with full quotes where the difference lies so that we can all see that there were two surveys that referred to the 7% that you claim.

“The Equality and Human Rights Commission… is more concerned with pushing its transphobic agenda than it is in protecting the civil rights of the people it’s meant to serve, which is UK citizens.””

Omg zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yep - straightforward homophobia is what it was, no ifs, buts, or maybes about it.

Anyone trying to excuse it, justify it as some on here are just show that they too are homophobic.

I have read all the way through this, unusual for me, I usually just top and tail long ones. And all I've come away with is a slightly extended list of the deliberately invincibly ignorant none of whom I shall take seriously.
If the LGBA had only 3 members and operated out of an address once used by Oswald Mosely they would still have a right to exist, and have conferences, because this is a free democracy, and no other pathetic little group has the right to stop them.
What next? I'm not going to suggest what other things could be released, I've had several ideas in the few minutes, but I wouldn't give anyone them. They might not care much about the well being of their agents either.

I think most readers can see the issues I've laid out easily.

The description given of the survey that I quoted about is that of a limited-in-scope post conference survey to find out what attendees felt of it. They told the court they were clueless about how this survey arrived at the 7% figure and subsequently arranged a larger one.

This does not sound like a description of a survey sent to all 4502 contacts on their mail list does it?

And yet in your quote they are saying that the 7% figure did come from such a large scale survey.

Yeah, I think there has been fudging. I smell a rat.

Do you have a copy of the survey? If so, please post it.

Otherwise, how do you know what they asked?

Again, they could have sent out a general conference survey AFTER the conference to all their database. Making it a POST - conference survey. I would if it was my organisation.

I obviously wasn't very clear in how this could work. It is relevant because the survey may include questions such as ( and this is just an example that I would do, and I have no idea what they did):

For example:

Did you attend our conference (insert year)?

If so, please give your thoughts on .... (a series of questions)

If not, please can you tick as many reasons why you did not attend this year as applicable.

Then, I would include questions such as :

What would you like to see discussed at future conferences?

Where do you think we should hold future conferences?

Should we move our conferences around to different locations?

How likely are you to attend a future conference?

And so on.

I think many young people don’t realise how far gay rights have had to come to be now part of mainstream thinking, and that it’s relatively recent in western societies and thus still precarious.

i mean I’ve no doubt there are still plenty of homophobic arseholes about but as a democracy we’re 95% there in the UK in terms of equality (getting the state religion (CofE) to conduct same sex marriage being the main gap in rights I see at the moment. Big issue if you’re a gay Anglican.)

hitching the TQ+ to LGB was a very clever move to take advantage of the increase in tolerance for different sexualities. More of us are waking up to the scope creep and I think this incident will cause quite a few people to have a WTAF moment.

I am not sure what you are smelling. But you don't seem very knowledgeable about conducting post event surveys.

I think you are trying to spread more misinformation and now you don't seem to be able to evidence your claims and have relied on 'I think most readers can see the issues'.

I think you are confused and the fudging here is being done by you.

@suggestionsplease1
2 surveys one in 2019, and one in 2022.

2019 gave 7% lesbian and 21% lesbian/gay, and about 31% prefer not to say (yes, shit survey as categories not mutually exclusive)

2022 survey gave ~ 80% as either lesbian, gay or bisexual

I don’t think this is very difficult to understand, but I also see that you are a shitstirrer, and not interested in discussing the actual topic of the thread or addressing the actions of the people who chose to do this.

If someone did this at a trans conference there would be hell to pay. But I see no evidence of this sort of action against trans people meeting to discuss their needs.

I find it so, so sad, having lived through the fight for LGB rights, that they now have straight people redefining what it is to be LGB, using the word queer, rewriting lesbian and gay history, linking to fetish and kink in front of children and bringing homophobia back in a big way. They need to get that awful, ugly, chevron off their flag pronto!

Read the 2 separate explanations of the 7% figure, both given by the LGB Alliance, one given in the court transcript I posted and one quoted by Hellebore (which I presume is an explanation given on their website?)

The description of these 2 surveys are very different in nature. That is the problem.

This survey? From 2022? Called LGB Alliance Supporter Survey?

https://lgballiance.org.uk/resources/

Coming back to this, so, suggestions please point out in these two quotes where you believe that they are talking about two different surveys that refer to the 7%.

One quote is from a person talking about something off the top of their head. One quote is from a prepared and checked statement.

But they are discussing the SAME survey, unless you have further evidence that I am missing.

Where are they different in nature?

Where specifically?

Is it because you want the 7% to refer to 'gay and lesbian etc' from the statement without notes? Where as this statement in court without notes can be read as being very open to interpretation and it is without notes.

The latest post from the group that released the crickets on X:

https://x.com/trans_kids_d_b/status/1846612061046124690/photo/1

....'I believe in the urgent need for militant trans rights activism' ... 'riots, militancy' ... 'I feel no obligation to tolerate or debate a group bent on eliminating my existence. I feel obliged to shut them fucking down'.

That is very concerning. I think that prevent referral was a good idea.