Green Party thread 3

[FermatsTheorem]

Previous thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3347925-Green-Party-statement-continuation-thread?pg=40

Will post links to AC's public statement and Caroline Lucas's appalling white wash job in a moment, but for me, Andrew Gilligan nails it yet again:
twitter.com/mragilligan/status/1034776005326581767

Brockley has 3seats - is that right? And one of those has been Green for a while. Did the usual Green candidate lose ? Or did Clare just not manage to win a second seat?

(I'm sorry to ask and not Google. Lazy)

It's probably a side-issue - but I would think she's probably seen as one of the more credible candidates, if not quite a 'Rising Star'.

Mind you, who knows? Who is in charge of decisions in the Green Party anyway? And who scrutinises decisions and actions to see if they are wise, democratic and not illegal?

Probably Clare, really.

Or Clare, and the group she's part of, think they are.

And have become used to acting as though they are.

Can't get over the idea of Molly (and Aimee) deciding a Member shouldn't speak at Conference, having a quick chat with mate Clare, the Clare and Co using Green Party data to organise an injunction,

And authorising Green Party funds for David Challenor to whip round in a taxi to serve the injunction.

Is that right?

I'm not sure.

Is that 'flat hierarchy' and 'devolved leadership'? Or the behaviour of a clique with scant understanding of Party ethics and legal process but unlimited, unscrutinised access to Party legitimacy, power and data?

Imagine letting that group loose with a Council budget and data.

Imagine letting that group loose with a Council budget and data.

Genuinely a frightening prospect given that people are commonly the weakest link with many of the reported data security breaches.

And there is still silence as to whether the Women's Group - of which Clare Phipps appears to be (effectively) the executive member (only her name is on that letter from the Women's Group) - used BlockTerf (developed by Aimee - did she have input from David Challoner?), and for what purposes (who went into BlockTerf? Why? Did it silence communication within the Party and between Gender critical members and an internal 'woke' group?).

Imagine that scenario in a local Council.

Clare Phipps is significant (part 2)

Before the debate on a new Trans policy, "TWAW and TMAM", the chair reminded Conference of the need for "safe spaces" for trans people within the debate. Further, the chair would take swift action to curtail any speech or question that could be interpreted as transphobic.

That unequivocal statement from the chair silenced critics.

And the chair of that debate was ..........? Yes, you guessed it.

So it wasn't just Terf Blocker, or the persecution and expulsion of critics, but a CULTURE of #nodebate in the Green party.

Is it any wonder that AC felt validated and powerful?

nothing to add, just a thank you, especially to RedToothbrush. I don't 'get' this stuff, but you're really helping me to understand.

just reading and boggling - like many, many others I would guess.

no-one's come to tell us we'll be on the wrong side of history for a while. I kind of miss it.

Reading down Molly Arthurs' Twitter feed.....bloody hell. There's a section of tweets where they're back-pedalling so damn fast about AC and DC and NO LINK TO THE GREENS, ABSOLUTELY ZILCH, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, you can almost see the smoke pouring out of the screen....sorry, am clueless at how to link to Twitter but someone else may be able to find it.

I can't see Molly Arthur's twitter feed to read her thoughts or engage with her, as I am blocked.

I have never interacted with her. Indeed, most of my tweets are about whatever trash I'm watching on telly. But as I have now followed some gender critical accounts, it seems I've been put in the cyber bin. Way to go, eh?

Molly Arthur's twitter feed is like dairy of a teenage girl.

Is this called cooperating with an investigation?

Indeed.

Looks "fair and transparent" to me.

WTF? That is just so goady and attention seeking. Urgh.

Is this called cooperating with an investigation?

That is precisely what I was concerned would happen.

Stand-by for news of erasure of friends and family members' tweets, FB posts, and assorted social media.

Are there no repercussions for what looks like actively hindering an investigation by deleting potential evidence?

BitOfFun, the only way I can read any of the twitter links linked to on mn is to log out of twitter or open the links in incognito windows.

It seems I'm blocked by almost everyone

I have nothing to hide and want to help.

Which is why I am deleting all my tweets.

Nothing to see here. Nope.

AC is allegedly deleting a lot more than tweets according to this twitter user.

twitter.com/doedoe90303811/status/1035870741319671808?s=21

Their Brony stage was so cute...

AC is allegedly deleting a lot more than tweets according to this twitter user.

If it's true there is an archive of relevant material, I hope the independent investigator learns enough to be able to ask for a copy.

tbh, even if AC is deleting material, I think it would be appropriate for the independent investigator to request the log/archive of AC's account during the period when AC was using it to tweet in an official capacity for the GP.

twitter.com/ThrupennyBit/status/1035889080456933377

Don't want to say too much about what's in this twitter thread, but the allegations in it are ... um.... well. In the light of what has been reported about DC's behaviour this is troubling, if it's true. Big if.

There is a lot of dark stuff being posted on twitter.

Not linking cos the thread will be deleted.

But if certain organisations' PR people are reading what I'm reading, I'd bet a P45 looks a lot more attractive than wading through that sort of long term stink. Because people can and do draw their own conclusions. Hearts and minds are not going to be a winnable prize in that particular battleground if the Red Tops are honing their headlines and selecting the best images on offer.

Sorry, crosspost with WomblingWoman. Same thread, different access points.

Is AC's role in the GP actually paid?

I had a bad experience once as a volunteer in a role which left me feeling very dubious about using volunteers for real work and especially policy-making. It's not easy to screen them before they start and there are big issues about monitoring what they do, the standard they work to, whether they are following proper procedures and so on. Probably differs from sector to sector, but in our case people got involved with good intentions but couldn't be compelled to do training and had often underestimated the time commitment and the complexity of what they'd signed up for. So there were issues around erratic or non-attendance, but the people who turned up once in a blue moon and wouldn't stop talking about things they didn't really understand were even more of a problem. Inevitably most of the work was done by a core of committed people, but they weren't necessarily good at it, just keen and available.

I suspect political parties experience all of the above, in spades.