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

Well they really shouldn't be 'talking off the top of their head's to a court, should they?

The impression given to the court was clear; a post conference survey with the stated intention of finding out how attendees felt about the conference, and also including some demographic data which gave a figure of gay and lesbian attendees of about 7% which nobody could understand.

In the light of this surprising figure they tell the court they then decided to conduct a bigger survey to try to get a more accurate understanding of the real composition of the LGB Alliance..

..and yet you are telling me that this (first, post-conference survey) is the survey where they contacted every single member on their mail list?

How exactly were they going to carry out a bigger survey than that, considering according to you, they've already contacted everyone they know?

Nope, I smell multiple rats.

Read the entire court transcript.

Well at least they are admitting they are extremists.

Helleofabore · Today 16:02

ahhh.... but ArcheryAnnie, when we point out that if we analyse Stonewall's supporter base for sexual orientation of the donator, those posters never seem to be able to acknowledge this.

It's like some Timmy Robertson supporter having a fit of the vapours and calling someone a racist.

This is actual terrorism - threatening bodily harm to people because of their opinions - gay people in fact

How the fuck can 8% of people who read this NOT think there people are domestic terrorists hellbent on hurting gay people?

Do we know how they define “trans liberation”?

Because it reads to me like fairly straightforward teenage angst (“everyone hates me and I hate everyone”) that has been stoked up in otherwise vulnerable people, who have not questioned the logic of who is doing the stoking and why.

'If you’ve seen or heard something that could suggest a terrorist threat to the UK, even if it seems minor or not worth mentioning, trust your instincts and ACT (Action Counters Terrorism) by reporting it. Any piece of information could be important, it's better to be safe and report. Your information could save a life. Below you’ll find all the different ways you can report possible terrorist activity, as well as answers to our most commonly asked questions.'

www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/t/terrorism-in-the-uk/how-to-report-possible-terrorist-activity/

So, now a person going to court, who is very stressed about the court case because they could have lost their charity status should have complete and accurate recall of information that they have now found was not accurate?

All because you, personally, don't understand how they could have sent a survey to those who didn't attend?

suggestions They stated that they did not 'force' an answer on the sexual orientation data gathering questions.

Then they discovered that they had to because for some reason LGB people choose not to answer what their sexual orientation is unless it is a mandatory question to complete the survey. So, that is likely what they did for the next one.

"How exactly were they going to carry out a bigger survey than that, considering according to you, they've already contacted everyone they know?"

WTAF???

They didn't need to do a 'bigger survey'! They had to make the question mandatory to answer. They had to ensure that people actually answered the question so they could get accurate numbers.

That is all they needed to do. Despite whatever you are trying to say they should be doing, all they needed to do was to make answering that question mandatory.

Job done!

And their database would have grown between the first and the second survey!!! As one might expect a growing organisation to do! So, they will have more people on their database to survey if that is how the 2022 survey was delivered?

Did you notice this:

"In August 2022 we commissioned a survey of our subscribers to help us plan to deliver services and support to LGB people."

I read this to be 'we got some professional help on this 2022 survey'. Which seems fucking likely considering they admitted the first one was not delivering them the information they needed, and was fucking being used against them as a demonisation tool.

Sorry, just for clarification. You 'commission' a survey when you get a consultant or an outside professional agency to do the survey for you.

Have you got anything that actually supports your claims?

"Escalate for trans kids." Too right. Trans kids are more than worth fighting for, they're our future.

I thought most trans people wanted to be of the opposite gender and wanted gender reassignment surgery, so they probably quite literally aren't the future?

I note that there was one contributer of the we'll win because you're all going to die sort. Put together with that aggressive tweet that's rather worrying. Sooner or later it's going to dawn on them that old age and end of life don't start about 35, and they have a long wait ahead.

Kate Harris: "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. "

Testimony from Kate Harris

https://lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/14-September-2022-Mermaids-v-Charity-Commission-Anor-Transcript-of-Hearing-as-agreed-by-the-Parties-.pdf

Your explanation is really not in keeping with the testimony given by Kate Harris. Her testimony also suggests the 7% was for both gay and lesbian attendees, not just lesbians.

"Are you a lesbian, gay, etc., etc? I think it was a ridiculous figure which came out at 7%. "

She states that the 2nd survey was carried out 'soon after'. Is 3 years later (I think this is right 2019 - 2022) really 'soon after'?

"The only data we had at that time, which is why we followed up with a survey, was a very rough post-conference survey"

...she draws a clear contrast between a post-conference survey and what is presumed to be a larger survey of all members to get a better idea because they didn't like the 7% figures from the post-conference survey.

This ☝️☝️💯

Do you believe in other conspiracy theories as well?

I think it may be best not to tax suggestionsplease with further discussion of this point. It's clearly very difficult to follow an argument when you have a rat stuffed up both nostrils.

It seems pretty simple to me, the explanations for the provenance of the 7% figure differ, depending on whether you read the court transcript I gave, or the explanation on the LGB Alliance website.

The provenance of one is a post conference survey to guage attendees' experience, the provenance of the other is a survey in the course of setting up their mailing group.

Now to me either this seems that there were different surveys and they both arrived at similar figures for lesbian / gay members, (in which case there is fairly good replicability of findings and this low figure for gay and lesbian members of the LGB Alliance seems accurate ).

Or, there has been fudging going on, which suggests grave credibility issues from the LGB Alliance.

Which one is it to be?

Yes, I have it open right there now.

Kate Harris is talking about the evidence given by Kate Barker at the Allison Bailey trial. Kate Harris was one of the founders of LGB Alliance along with Bev Jackson. She is not Kate Barker.

Sure, Kate Harris was not clear in what Kate Barker had said at the Allison Bailey trial. So now your accusation is that under pressure as a witness in a trial where her organisation could have been significantly harmed, she did not state the results for the 2019 survey clearly enough in your personal opinion?

And she said 'soon after' when it was 2- 3 years after, and to you, personally, that is not 'soon' enough to warrant that description?

But if you read the paragraphs above that, she is very clear about the 2022 survey. Because it was something she and the others were working on.

"...she draws a clear contrast between a post-conference survey and what is presumed to be a larger survey of all members to get a better idea because they didn't like the 7% figures from the post-conference survey."

Yes, because the post-conference survey was the one that delivered the 7% as per the statement posted on their website where they could be very clear and precise with their language and therefore very accurate.

The 'larger survey' was the 2022 survey.

If this is all the evidence you have, then clearly you have been very keen to make these accusations based on nothing. Just your determination to misrepresent things.

And yes, they didn't 'like' the 2019 survey because it delivered data that could not be well interrogated by sexual orientation. They have been consistent about this.

I think your doubling down on this has shown your own lack of consistency here. You seem very determined to create more surveys and to frame this group as being dishonest. Based on your very own bad faith interpretation of this transcript.

So what? Are trans supporters all trans? Are Stonewall supporters all trans? What about Nationwide and the NHS? All or mostly trans?

More seriously, you seem to be suggesting that it's ok to commit a homophobic hate crime against a group of homosexuals and bisexuals because the conference organisers, the LGBA, didn't tally up the sexual orientation of its supporters correctly a few years ago.

Edited for typos

I’ve got a good idea @suggestionsplease1 why don’t you take it up with LGBA directly?

Even better all supporter of Mermaids - the charity for trans identifying kids - should be trans? Is that right?

Bit of a bummer when it comes to pocket money financing them then isn't? Especially since the government funding dried up due to the charity commissions investigation into their conduct and safeguarding issues.

But still, the LGB Alliance are the bad guys here and they aren't legitimate because they have too many none gay allies.

Did you understand that Kate Harris was discussing John Nicolson's misrepresentation of information? Was that integral to the case do you think?

If it was why wasn't a transcript produced by the barristers relying on John Nicolson's testimony for Kate Harris to review. Kate said it was not her statement in any case, John Nicolson was misrepresenting Kate Barker's evidence.

You posted this:

"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. "

So, you are holding Kate Harris to account for something that Kate Barker said in court.

"Your explanation is really not in keeping with the testimony given by Kate Harris. Her testimony also suggests the 7% was for both gay and lesbian attendees, not just lesbians."

'Your' explanation is founded on your personal interpretation from one source, an inaccurately stated and vague recollection about someone else's statement in another court case.

Yet you are then determined to dismiss the 2022 survey because .... at this point, I am not sure why. It seems to be simply you wanting to dismiss it.

How about this? It was not a peer reviewed study done on the LGB Alliance database so therefore it could all be made up anyway? Absurd? Yes, I would have thought so, but here we are still discussing why your bad faith interpretation is somehow a more accurate version of the facts. So, maybe it is not absurd at all.

I was at the conference. I am bisexual. I went with a lesbian friend, who has attended twice before with her other lesbian friends. You only had to use your eyes to see the majority of attendees were not straight. I spoke to many of them and found them thoughtful and compassionate people, concerned about and the issues threatening our right to maintain boundaries as same-sex attracted people and the pressures facing women and young people today. I found it uplifting and left feeling much more connected to a community I've felt little in common with over recent years.

FFS.

"The provenance of one is a post conference survey to gauge attendees' experience, the provenance of the other is a survey in the course of setting up their mailing group."

Both statements can be true. And are highly likely to be true. why? Because they would have uploaded the names of the attendees 'to set up their mailing group'! They could have even moved their existing database to Mailchimp, which I have done often, thereby 'setting up their mailchimp database'.

There is no inconsistency here in these statements you made. It is you attempting to parse sentences to mean different things.

I am now beginning to think that you actually don't have experience in conducting marketing research.

Operation #letthemspeak doing Stirling work again I see

Why won't anyone condemn trans activists who carry around signs saying KILL TERFs or post pictures of themselves with weapons to intimate anyone who disagrees with them?

Why won't anyone condemn trans activists who carry out an act which mets the definition of extremist and then continue to post saying they need to become militant and carry out public order offences?

Is that too much to ask?

Instead we get bogged down in pages and pages about how the LGB Alliance membership isn't gay enough somehow (despite the actual evidence that no one can be bothered to read) and it's fine for the trans friendly charities and supporter to be chock full of allies with no need to justify or demonstrate how many trans people are actually at the grassroots of their campaigns.

It's almost as if theres a deliberate militant attempt to demonise and stop democrat debate and discuss of issues which affect certain groups.

So that was it??

That paragraph that you are relying on is all you have?

I know. But you know red, I live in hope that if we see exactly where posters are pulling these misinformed views from, and point out the outstanding flaws in interpretation and lack of experience that has lead to that view being formed, maybe they will simply stop repeating that misinformation.

But maybe I am just an eternal optimist.