Lord Paddick resigns the LGBT LD executive

[RedToothBrush]

LGBT+LD @ lgbtlb
Public statement by the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats executive regarding the resignation of our honorary president, Lord Paddick:
1/4
The LGBT+ Liberal Democrats executive has reluctantly accepted the resignation of Lord Paddick as our honorary president.
2/4
Lord Paddick previously tended his resignation, which we declined when he made certain undertakings about his meeting with a group set up to oppose transgender equality legislation.
3/4
We regret that those undertakings have not been honoured. Subsequently Lord Paddick tended his resignation again, which has been accepted.
4/4

Lord Paddick has form for resigning

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brian-lord-paddick-quits-over-tim-farron-gay-sex-comments-lib-dem-liberal-democrat-general-election-a7789816.html%3famp
Lord Paddick quits as Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokespeson following furore over leader Tim Farron's views on gay sex
The former Lib Dem London Mayoral candidate said the decision had been made 'weeks ago.'

He quit as LD home affairs spokesperson as he was uncomfortable with Tim Farron's views on gay marriage. The resignation prompted Farron's ultimately. He is an important and influential figure in the party.

I'm not quite sure what's going on here or why. It sounds like the LGBT LD didn't want him to resign. It sounds like its connected to trans issues and Paddick's position. The timing is interesting.

I don't want to read too much into this. But its suggesting a split in opinion and approach. (I don't believe this shows that Paddick is pro-women's rights. I suspect he is more pro-due process, at least at this stage). And that its damaging to the executive as a whole.

When is the meeting with Paddick scheduled for? It could be very interesting now. Looks like Paddick really is sticking his neck out.

RedToothBrush
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the "Please note that this event to open to anyone who self identifies as female."

In the publicity for the event for aspiring Libdem women MPs you linked to.

It is both disappointing and frightening the depth to which this narrative has become accepted. I watched the recording of the Bristol meeting on Facebook yesterday. Heather Brinscall Evans (sp?) made the point about the ingrained narrative. How do we challenge this?

The current accusation by LibDem LGBT+ that Mumsnetters are calling for a new section 28 has resonance due the anniversary.

It's particular meaning for LibDems was highlighted by Zoe O'Connell member of the LibDem LGBT+ executive in a speech to conference.

www.complicity.co.uk/blog/

"And, as you’ve already heard, this year is a special anniversary.
"An anniversary of something really, really… bad.
I can see a few staff members near the front looking worried now. Don’t worry, I’m not talking about the formation of the Liberal Democrats!
No, I’m talking about the 24th of May, 1988. The Conservatives implementing section 28, banning any mention of homosexuality in schools. Leaving a generation of frightened LGBT kids with nowhere to turn.
Liberals back then were determined folk – just as many of us are now – and were not going to waste any time. After all, the old Liberal Party had already included full equality in their 1979 general election manifesto so many in the newly formed Liberal Democrats were already well on board.
And they didn’t let being busy with the formation of a new party slow down their campaigning.
Just nine days after the party was formed, Simon Hughes MP – was amongst those standing up in the Commons, speaking out against section 28.
Thirty years on. What’s changed?
In terms of a liberal commitment to LGBT rights, not much."

Not read whole thread.

My opinion is that Brian paddick is a good man, as an ex very high level police officer he has a lot of experience of all sorts of stuff ie he's not a career politician. To get to that position as an out gay man in the met (and it was some years ago) I imagine means that he is extremely determined and thick skinned.

I will never forget him speaking to ? An enquiry about handling of rape cases while he was at met, how he had got a report together and was trying to improve things but the report was altered and ultimately buried. He was very angry. A few have said he may not be super interested in women but more not liking voices being shut down, I wouldn't be so sure.

I am pleased that he seems to be ready to hear the concerns that some women have. (Increasing numbers of women, as it gets more into the mainstream and we start to see effects even before this goes through eg sport, prison, crime stats. And things like the top shop changing room, which a more related to daily life and illustrate where things are currently heading).

Brian if you see this you've got a bit of a long term fan here

KittTheCar my thoughts too...

brian on rape at met

general on him

It was the leveson enquiry where he said that a report he prepared on rape handling in the met and how it was useless got watered down and ultimately suppressed.

Like I say he is a good man, I'm sure he's an intelligent man, and is a man who clearly is going to get pissed off with people telling him who he may or may not talk to. So, I'm sure he will go ahead with his conversations, and maybe he will see what those of us who have concerns about opening all female only stuff up on the basis of self ID are worried about.

The crime stats piece may be a good one to flag with him - the stats are already going cockeyed - 8 women convicted of rape last year, and a general large increase. Are rape laws being used differently (rape requires a penis usually) to prosecute more women? Are women offending more? Or, is this a result of some of the group that commits the vast majority of sex offences being included with the women's stats? Ultimately over time meaning the stats are useless, as we lose sight of who is doing what to who.

A general large increase in women being convicted of sex offences I meant to say.

This was reported in some of the papers with a big headline. And then exploring why and how shocking that so many more women are committing and being convicted of sex offences.

Even though it was still 1000 times less than the sex offences committed by men!

Who does this help?

• Skewing the stats to make it look like more women are "doing it too"
• Taking the spotlight off the men doing it

One clue - not women.

Rowan: every time they do this we can point to the many disgusting examples of transactivist homophobia. It's rampant. They are such hypocrites.

Pratchet only once MPs and others with political influence are able to listen...
James Kirkup [[
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/if-mumsnet-can-stand-up-for-free-speech-why-cant-mps/]]
Long before Mumsnet or the internet even existed, we created a place where people’s views could be heard and discussed, where opinions could be aired and compared. We even employed a group of people to ensure that such opinions would be raised and considered. The place is called Parliament and the people are called MPs. As a result of writing about this issue here over the last few months, I have come to know that quite a few of those MPs, from all parties, think that the sorts of questions the Mumsnetters are asking about gender are quite reasonable and should be answered. But precious few of those MPs will say so in public. They are not willing to do what Justine Roberts has done and say openly that there is nothing transphobic about debating gender and sex, even if some people don’t like some of the things that are said in that debate, because – and this cannot be said enough – there is no right not to be offended.

It sounds like Lib Dem LGBT person (I believe a current or ex-councillor in Cambridge?) tried to force Paddick to promise not to meet any feminists, and when he said 'no', they said 'well you better resign then mate'

The crime stats being reported by sex has an impact on understanding and tackling the different reasons women and men tend to be in prison, too.

My opinion is that Brian paddick is a good man

This is my impression too from the way he has conducted himself here, and some of the things shared on this thread too. He is listening to both sides despite considerable pressure.

It sounds like he cares about principles, doing the right thing, and also the rights of the LGBT community, and of vulnerable women (given his past work outlined above).

@TerfinUSA

I didn't think that strictly what happened.

Obviously I'm reading between the tweets here, I I think the chain of events was:

• BP responds to a tweet asking politicians to engage in the debate by asking to speak to some "sensible" RadFems.

• Lots of people respond to point him with Karen Ingelia Smith and a Woman's Place

• Turns out he knows KIS and they DM and agree to meet offline

• the LD activist (who I think is in a relationship with a member of the LDLGBT group, is very vocal in criticising PD on Twitter.

• PD issues a statement saying he didn't intend to offend anyone but plans to hear from all groups and make up his own mind.

• At this point it seems behind the scenes there was a discussion between PD and the LDLGBT group. They expressed strong concern about these meetings. It sounds like PD volunteered his resignation but it was rejected. It would also appear that some "deal" was done about not publicising these meetings.

• PD responds to further questions and criticism about who/when he's met people from AWP. He confirms the meetings are going ahead, but he's not going to engage in debate via twitter.

• LDLGBT then tweet suggesting PD has broken a promise by giving these meetings publicity

• Looks like PD volunteers his resignation again and this time it's accepted.

My take from this is that PD is walking a fine line but he's not someone who takes kindly to being told who he can/can't speak to.

I've no idea what conclusions he will reach but tbh we asked people to engage and I think he deserves credit for doing so.

I have faith that AWP and KIS are extremely capable of putting women's concerns across in a logical, reasonable and respectful way.

I don't think LDLGBT comes out of this very well and tbh they've lost as chair a very senior and respected politician because they insisted on trying to prevent debate.

PD? Puff Daddy?

Assume that is BP gone awry through half the post?

I think that what you outline is probably what happened as well.

sorry I'm all thumbs today and was getting distracted by RL when posting.

Yes I did mean BP where I used PD though now I can't get Puff Daddy out of me head :-)

Its a bit tangled up as The Liberal Democrat party have said they aren't responsible for the LibDem LGBT+ twitter account

Huh. I didn't realise that. I think anyone would assume that the LGBT+ Lib Dem account wasn't official, especially as it states in their twitter bio that they are...

The LGBT LD Executive IS the official LGBT branch of the LDs. LD main office is saying they are not responsible for the LGBT branch because of the federal system of the LDs. Except they are. In theory they could do something by saying something or challenging whats going on. But instead they have washed their hands of all responsibility and erased sex and replaced it with gender on all their correspondence.

Also I am curious as to why they extended the deadline for women applicants. Is it because they haven't had as many as they would like?

Another supporter of Brian Paddick here. At least he’s attempting to educate himself about the concerns of women, unlike his fellow Lordship, Michael Cashman, who has been hostile regarding any attempts at debate.

twitter.com/LGBTLD/status/987611577825325057

LGBT+ Lib Dems @LGBTLD
Being trans isn’t about living within gender norms or otherwise. Plenty of trans women are butch lesbians, for example.

Sarah Stuart @sarahstuartxx
Do you understand that this is a homophobic statement?

On Paddick's thread.

And a further reply:

Brienne the Beauty @BrienneOfBath
@LibDems Friendly reminder that Sexual Orientation is a protected characteristic under UK law and is defined as being based on sex. It's homophobic to say that a male can be a lesbian. Not a good look.

Not to mention the fact that pressure is being put on lesbians to sleep with and date transwomen, despite us not being attracted to them. Promoting rape culture isn't a very good look either.

I hope Paddick sees this, though I suspect he has tuned out of such conversations on twitter now.

That thread gets worse. Someone asked what the LGBT LDs are on about.

They replied:
LGBT LD @ lgbtld
Hi Goody. Perhaps you could read a book about it rather than yelling on the Internet at people of whom, by your own admission, you understand nothing?

Although we appreciate such things as informing yourself aren’t fashionable in Brexit Britain.

Max Harris @ Maximaxdoright
Crikey. Which book?

LGBT LD @ lgbtld
It’s a little dated but “Whipping Girl” by Julia Serano remains a good primer.

Miranda Yardley has not commented on the thread directly but has referenced to post saying this, with a quote from Julia Serano.

Miranda XYardley @ terrorizermir
Julia Serano in his own words (yes this is autogynephilic transsexualism which the @LibDems equate with ‘being a woman’).

Its also very very far away from gender dysphoria. Given the Mail's story about children and the LGBT LDs referencing Julia Serano that quote is potentially hugely inflammatory and worrying.

I am embarrassed to be a Lib Dem right now. And that's saying something.

Heads up. No man ever gained women's rights. Just a thought. There has been no man who did this.

That whole threads a hot mess that any politician should be running from.

From what I've seen it's just a small group (in one locality) rather than a significant representation of members

I do believe they are a bullying clique of individuals.

I wonder if these are the same people I've had run-ins with on LD Facebook groups. They were certainly very, very quick to pile in and call me a transphobe and say that I had no right to speak and no understanding of what women's rights are if I disagreed with the TWAW rhetoric.

LGBT LD @ lgbtlb
Trans women are women. Trans women do not have “male bodies”, and do not have to conform to your assumption about their socialisation. We realise this will probably prompt another deluge of hate tweets, but this stuff needs challenging.

Whatever now? @ cutlasslil
Is there a way you're OK with of describing the physical difference between me and someone with a male reproductive system? Honest question. Presumably that continues to be a difference that can be acknowledged as physical fact?

LGBT LD @ lgbtlb
What’s the purpose? Work out what you’re trying to do and the language you need should follow.

Whatever now? @ cutlasslil
So I can talk about people in the way that matters to me, because of my lived experience in a world where the impact of the experience of sexual harrasment and threat of violence from people with the opposite reproductive biology is massive.

LGBT LD @ lgbtlb
Ok, you’re speaking to a trans woman right now. I get sexually harassed. I get doctors ignoring gynaecological problems. I get men yelling at me from passing cars. I get dismissed by men in my area of expertise. All that stuff.

So it’s not clear to me what you’re trying to do.

Posted as it needs to be shared. DO NOT BITE. The comment should stand alone.