So, hands up if you have been blocked by LM on Twitter?

[Stormwhale]

Due to the fact that I have never actually had any contact with LM, and had only liked (or did the heart thing - I'm a bit Twitter illiterate) 2 comments on a Twitter feed (1 - very politely pointed out that LM has not actually spoken about a single women's issue since being in the role and 2 - pointed out, again politely, that LM seems to be more interested in trans issues than women's issues).. I'm going to assume it doesn't take much to be blocked by LM.

I have never posted anything derogatory or even commented on anything to do with LM On Twitter.

Have I managed to be no platformed without actually saying a word?

Someone called Peter advised LM will not having children as LM isn't female. I concurred just now.
I feel a bit miserable for pointing out the obvious to a deluded boy but then I'd also like to help pop a poisonous bubble.

That tweet Juzza posted. Um. Has anyone let Lily know that studies are generally published once concluded and that unless Lily can link to the study that Lily claims to have been involved in then Lily looks like Lily is making shit up as Lily goes along?

(If enough of us write like this will it make HQ reconsider their ban on correctly sexed pronouns? Because ugh, it's awkward, but there's no way I'm calling someone like Lily she.)

I'm blocked for saying that I didn't want to be called a ciswoman. I wasn't allowed to self-identify as a woman effectively.

I was blocked a couple of days after I joined Twitter back in November. I asked LM what a woman was. Unacceptable question, apparently.

LM, "women's officer", retweeted this, entirely without irony it seems.

If you’re not BME, I don’t care who you think should win the BME caucus election. That’s for us to decide

I wonder what happens if you replace "BME" with "a woman"/"women's"?

Not sure what his method is

Madness?

I'm blocked! It didn't make much, tbh - I didn't even engage with LM directly, just "liked" a couple of gender-critical tweets and occasionally wrote supportive comments under other people's tweets.

I've done similar (just liked a couple of critical replies to LM's tweets) and remain unblocked. I don't know if this is a good, or a bad thing!

I'm not blocked by Lily, but am apparently blocked by someone he's having a discussion about Clement Attlee with!

The mind boggles! Is he claiming Attlee was a pioneering TIM by any chance?

Me too. I asked a question.
Is there a t-shirt?

Completely lost the plot now.

This is a bit weird. Obviously none of you are big fans of LM so why are you annoyed that she's sussed that out and blocked you? Your complaints seem to be that you were subtle enough in your disapproval that she ought not to have noticed, but obviously not!

It's twitter, not her work email. She can block who she likes. I've blocked loads of people on twitter because I don't like their views and have no interest in hearing what they say (for example, Donald trump, katie Hopkins, piers Morgan). LM is entitled to do the same...

It's twitter, not her work email. She can block who she likes.

See, I actually think this is debatable!

I'm in tech, so may have a somewhat biased view on this kind of thing, but essentially:

If you happen to have any sort of official function in any organisation, maintaining a social media presence is pretty much de rigeur these days. You're very welcome to also maintain personal SM accounts at the same time, though the 'done thing' so to speak, is to set these private, use a pseudonym or whatnot.

LM is basically using his Twitter account to self-market and publicly make all sorts of announcements that pertain to the women's officer's role in some shape or form but is simultaneously refusing to actually allow for opposing points of view.

As someone who advises clients on how to do this kind of thing in a professional capacity, I'd have to say: amateur levels of SM management!

Madigan wants women who speak for themselves on their private personal twitter purged from the Labour Party, so as an official of that party it is hardly appropriate to refuse to engage with the people one claims to represent.

Since Madigan refuses to represent any women except those who claim to be "transwomen" it is easy to see why they have so little work to do as the Women's Officer.

Perhaps it is time for female women to request representation for their half of the human population in the Labour Party?

@thebewilderness, I'd love that, though I'm currently overseas, so can't take the lead.

If someone currently in the UK steps forward, I'd be willing to re-join the LP to support the effort.

I'm not bloody surprised it doesn't take up much of LM's time, LM is not doing the job!

As for annoyed for being blocked, no. I was surprised and saddened that despite taking on a role for women, LM does not want to hear the viewpoints of any women. LM is solely interested in trans topics. I guess a tiny part of me thought that LM might see that they aren't doing the job they have signed up for, but it is absolutely clear that LM is not interested in women's issues and is not interested in any conversation outside of the trans agenda.

@Terfousbreakdown I don't see what you being in tech has to do with it...? Either you believe that every person has the right to choose who they do or don't engage with, or you don't. That's not a technical concern

@DietCokeGirrrrrl, being in tech basically means that you tend to view technology as a means to an end and not as a personal playground. I could (but won't) go off on an endless tangent about how people are endangering themselves and others by failing to realise the extent to which their use of technology is NOT a private affair ...

Suffice to say, if you're a public figure, which LM is thanks to bullying his way into a women's offer position and lapping up the resulting publicity, and you own social media accounts, the expectation is generally, that these belong to your public persona.

If you want to engage in banter with friends, you're free to set up private accounts, accounts under a pseudonym, etc.

Owning social media accounts in your own name is akin to getting on top of a soapbox at Speaker's Corner and shouting your beef with the world out via megaphone - if Speaker's Corner had an archive of everyone who ever spoke there and what they said.

Anyone who doesn't act accordingly is either supremely naive or plain stupid.

Well then, perhaps it's because I'm a lawyer that I think it's odd and a little concerning that people will insinuate that there are duties and responsibilities (for example, being required to engage with people you know are hostile to you) where no such duties or responsibilities exist...

If LM ever were to be elected to any public office, blocking all the non-sycophants wouldn't work. Councillors and MPs are expected to represent all their constituents, even the ones who didn't vote for them. LM's attitude on social media is gobsmackingly awful and non-inclusive. A lot of it is probably down to immaturity.

As not-a-lawyer, I'd argue that there is a difference between being required to engage with people hostile to you and a reasonable expectation that persons serving in any sort of official or semi-official capacity be open to questions and feedback from the general public that pertain directly to their role.

I'd argue that there is a reasonable expectation that channels of communication which are used by a public figure to promote their agenda may, by default, be assumed to also be available for feedback by the general public.

I'd also argue that the standard of evidence required to reasonably declare someone 'hostile' goes somewhat beyond asking questions, expressing disagreement in a non-abusive manner or even just expressions of agreement with some third party who disagrees with a person.

Nobody's demanding that LM actually respond to all questions. Nobody's questioning LM's right to block people who abuse him. What people are saying is that LM's default position of blocking anyone and everyone who expresses or could be construed as holding opposite opinions is problematic.

LM is positioning himself as a politician, as clearly shown by various statements to the effect that LM is seeking elected office or positions within the LP. Surely you're not arguing that politicians should basically be free to shut out any criticism and refuse debate?

While arguably not illegal, this would be an approach that is, in its essence, inherently undemocratic and utterly incompatible with the basic principles of liberal democracy.