NancyToo I wrote this in response to your post, but it’s also a general response to this entire thread (and what took place across a number of other threads yesterday and the day before).
Agree with Waters.
Lisa’s position has consistently been misrepresented using a combination of subtle misquoting, inaccurate attribution and altered context.
If I am charitable, I could assume this was due to a genuine misunderstanding, Lisa’s idiosyncratic writing style and glossary of terms relating to institutional systems were alien to me when I first encountered them.
However, Lisa’s opinions are consistent across a number of blog posts (years and years worth) and YouTube videos, so it’s not hard to clarify her positions, and indeed, she has given multiple answers right here, on these threads.
We’ve all been watching her do it, only some people seem to have wilfully misunderstood her answers.
As for ‘be nice and stop talking about squirrels’ well...
If people didn’t demand we declare 100% agreement with an individual’s opinions with (what appears to be the intent) of weaponising any even slightly dissenting answers against that individual, we wouldn’t have to resort to demonstrating solidarity by talking at tangents.
We recognised an attempt to isolate Lisa from the rest of us (via manufactured conflict) and we resisted it.
For the record, i don’t always agree entirely with all of Lisa’s stated viewpoints, but much of Lisa’s current commentary is prediction, so agreement isn’t actually required.
What I do know is that Lisa’s past predictions, made through her particular understanding of systems, institutions and power dynamics, have turned out to be eerily prophetic.
I have no reason to believe that won’t be the case here, and that makes her well worth listening to, in my opinion.
Safeguarding IS prediction.
It’s knowing what could happen, and what the worst case consequences would be if it did happen and it’s taking steps to prevent those consequences occurring.
If Lisa concluded that a particular action by WPUK, or by a person associated with WPUK had the potential of causing harm, either to an individual or lots of individuals, and no one at WPUK seemed to be aware of that potential to cause harm, then Lisa is obligated to point that out, no?
From what I can see, Lisa has been pointing out the potential for austerity to cause large scale harm for almost a decade, and now those predictions have been proved true.
I am inclined to err on the side of believing her safeguarding predictions.
It’s not nice to be told your actions put another person in harms way, but developing enough humility to learn from your mistakes and minimise your likelihood of putting further people in harms way is surely the appropriate response?
I’m a ‘woman on the left’ and I’m not at all offended by Lisa’s assertions. I see them as an opportunity for learning and yes. a chance to correct a blind spot of my own. We all have them.