Go Fund Me addiction part 2

[SophoclesTheFox]

The conversation is far from over on this...

link

The NEC are going to announce this afternoon that they allow self ID

Labour women have been seriously lobbying NEC members yesterday and today, and today are going to really go for it with the twitter handle #LabourLosingWomen

PLEASE let @UKLabour know they are losing women members and voters.

Urgently.

I'm concerned about Jennifer's latest update (no.12) which states funds are to be diverted to defend women donors against harassment. While arguably worthwhile, labour party complaint procedures exist, as do ICO and police. The whole fund could easily be spent on lawyers fees in the space of a week and we'll have nothing left to fight the AWS - which is looking more likely to be needed.

Women are going to self-sabotage again aren't they (we)?

Datun I am a Labour voter and party member what can I do? I will immediately resign my membership and cancel my direct debit if this goes ahead but what's the best way to let them know before it happens? I don't tweet but I can't be the only party member to not engage with them on social media in that fashion.

Re update 12: I don't want to withdraw my donation, but feel no decision should be taken till after the NEC decision on AWS is released.

I was going to donate once I had a bit more cash, but I'm not sure I want to if it's going to be used for individual legal funds.

Defending the existence of AWS was the point I was interested in.

If this all goes through I feel like I'll be in the horrible position of choosing between a party that is anti women or a party that is anti poor people.

Ugh.

LyTinWheedle

I don't know. Because this is all happening very fast, in real time. And Twitter, at the moment, is the only medium.

If the announcement goes the wrong way, then I would still go through traditional means to object. Because the fallout could be severe and they need to know it.

In terms of the go fund me page. Please hold off until after the announcement. Will be today!

Jennifer James said she was diverting the funds when she thought that Labour had backed down.

If they don't back down, she can still go ahead with the original intention.

Please just hold off asking for a refund. It's only a few hours.

Forgive me if I sound thick, but I woke up that way today ...

So Labour have expelled VA. This can go one of two ways. They can either leave it at that, which won't surprise many, or they can expel others too. I think these are very different situations and might demand very different responses.

Is there not a barrister who will work pro bono BTW?

Yes, let's wait the day out to see what happens.

I won't be asking for a refund but if the funds are diverted I won't be making my intended monthly donations either.

Datun, thank you for the reply. I'm not going to be asking for a refund, Jennifer James can use my money as she sees fit. I will be making another, symbolic, donation of £3 when they make the announcement as that is my party dues. Then on pay day I will donate again!

I've sent an email to the suggested people on the other thread, which they obviously won't have time to read before the announcement but my objection is down in black and white. Then I suppose I break my heart and cancel my party membership this afternoon once the announcement is made.

YetAnotherSpartacus I think they have a pro bono barrister and he is the one who has done all the work to make sure there is a legal chance to fight the decision but they need funds for a longer battle. I think I'm going to have to change my NN to a Spartacus one too!

I DMed Jennifer James on twitter and she said to check the update and to thank all the mumsnetters for their support.

The update is:

The crowdfunder's stated intent was that it is spent on legal fees to ensure AWS and Women's officer places are reserved for women, ie people who are legally female and have 'F' on their birth certificate.

The crowdfunder signatories are aware that using the fund to instruct lawyers to defend crowdfunder women donors from harassment for their belief on this issue is, arguably, a deviation from the original aim.

We would urge anyone who is not comfortable with their money being spent on this purpose to contact @msjenniferjames on twitter immediately or alternatively contact gofundme directly.

LyTinWheedle

No I wasn't suggesting you were going to withdraw your donation.

Sorry, I know it looked like that. It wasn't my intention.

This bit is to everyone:

I understand people have a problem with Venice Allan. She has rattled cages on both sides.

Which Is the reason they have gone for her. She is the weak gazelle. Her credibility can be challenged.

What challenging her credibility can't do is change the law.

You may not want to nail your flag to her specific mast. And you may not agree that she represents you.

However, in terms of the law, she is the only one who can provide the basis for breaking it.

At the moment.

They have chucked her out precisely because they think they can get away with it, due to her credibility.

If Jennifer James is going to end up using her, it will be because her lack of credibility does not count in terms of the law.

If her credibility undermines the case, they won't use her. It would be pointless.

And, of course, these things take time. By the time they have looked at all the emails and messages, they might well find someone with more credibility who can provide a stronger case.

ChemistryGeek

Well I'm assuming she was suspended on the basis of 'transphobia'.

In which case, I'm guessing the legal challenge will be what constitutes transphobia.

Which would be an enormous issue.

Because it's the entire basis of what constitutes a woman. Is it transphobic to correctly identify a biological man as such.

Or was she suspended on the basis of something else?

Those are 2 different legal challenges. Personally I think the former is of wider import than the latter

I'm curious here. I've been busy elsewhere but will winning any test case here have wider implications in precedent for situations outside of AWS shortlists anyway?

Is it transphobic to correctly identify a biological man as such

She went a bit beyond this though ...

I think it will. Because it sets a precedent. Which, from what I can gather, is hugely powerful.

There will also be publicity around it. We need the general public to realise that these terms have not been nailed down.

We need them to know that self identification is so ludicrous.

The man on the street would think it was crazy.

Public opinion is going to be pivotal.

She called him a dick splash and said she thinks this dick is going to fake a suicide soon.

On a private forum. Someone stole it and tweeted it.

There is nothing illegal about what she said.

We talk on here all the time about how suicide is used as a manipulation technique.

It's a horrible thing to say to somebody's face, but she didn't do that.

Plus she apologised to Madigan. Said she had no intention of them ever reading that.

It's not illegal to insult people.

And is it illegal to migender them? Is that the basis of transphobia? These are questions that will have significance in law, not just culture

Did she say anything else? That I'm missing?

To be specific, iirc, when she made the suicide comment it was in reply to someone else making a meme and her complaining about that. As in, "if you do things like this, the dicksplash will commit suicide and people will blame us". Or at least, I remember that being how I interpreted it. And I'm no Venice fan.

I'm also holding off.

That said, while I agree that Venice is hardly the most sympathetic of people at times, we will, at some point, have to get two things sorted out in addition to AWS eligibility:

1. Is Labour now a biology-denying theocracy? Can you be a member without subscribing to the genderist religion?

2. Is Maoist witch hunting that breaks data protection law acceptable within the Labour Party? Is it allowable for anyone? Or just women like Venice that aren't always polite? Must women be polite to be in Labour?

I'm sorry, I really don't think whether Venice should be suspended or not does go to the heart of the issue of "what is a man, what is a woman?" in the same way as the original purpose of the campaign.

I agree, in terms of the circumstances, it doesn't have the clean, moral feel to it.

But if there's one thing I've learnt from here, none of that matters in terms of making law.

The only I would say is to hold fire. I totally understand how you or anyone would change their mind if Venice was being used as a test case.

Personally, I don't care if it is Venice or not. As long as it stands a strong chance of winning.

That would be my only criteria.

Because losing, with Venice, would create a backlash.