DV Select Committee contributor wants to browse adult sites on train wifi

[BrightonReSisters]

By now you've probably all seen, or at least heard about, Karen Ingala Smith's wonderful contribution to the Women & Equalities Select Committee yesterday. If not, you can see it here:

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/0d07ff13-636e-4b51-a946-2877e583dc4c

You may NOT have seen this re one of the other contributors, Diana James. Diana works with refuges in the south West. On the train to the Select Committee yesterday, Diana wanted to shop online for sex toys. Diana wasn't happy that GWR blocked the online sex toy shop from their WiFi, due to the adult nature of their products. We know this because Diana publicly tweeted to GWR to complain.

That Diana thinks it appropriate to visit an adult site on a public train is disturbing. That Diana thinks it's a good idea to broadcast this publicly is odd. That Diana thought GWR would bow down to Diana's demand to access adult content on their WiFi is downright bizarre.

Diana was invited to give evidence about provision of services for survivors of domestic violence and that makes behaviour even more worrying than if we were talking about a teenage boy or suited commuter.

Diana can of course do as Diana pleases within the bounds of the law. That said, this is a red flag.

When someone in Diana's position thinks this kind of behaviour is appropriate we must ask questions. The first question is probably the most obvious: why ask a this person, with questionable boundaries, to speak for vulnerable abuse survivors?

It's a small mercy that at least GWR seem to have their heads screwed on.

@sexpaygap unfortunate that we have screenshots, eh?!

@ArcheryAnnie funny that, isn't it? If women are so terribly dangerous, why do some men so desperately want to get into our spaces? Why aren't they campaigning for their own spaces?*

*we know why

Who the hell NEEDS to browse sex toy sites on a train? Can’t it wait?

Perhaps the excitement of the impending validation of a Select Committee appearance was overwhelming and they just couldn't help themselves.

Now, see, I'm the same sex as Ingala-Smith, and the opposite sex from James and I've never once thought to browse an adult sex toy website using train WiFi.
I can't help but think that such inappropriate behaviour is indicative of the opposite sex to me, and not my own sex.
It seems like a person of that sex and that predilection may not be best suited to contribute opinion to issues concerning safeguarding of women and girls.
I'd say James might not be a reliable person to ask about what's best for women.

I'd say James might not be a reliable person to ask about what's best for women.

Exactly so ... not one autogynephilic male is a reliable person to ask about what is best for women.

Beyond that, not one trans lobbyist or activist is a reliable organisation / person to ask about what is best for women.

The only people who are reliable people to ask about what is best for women is women.

I started off fuming about the content of this thread but bloody hell I love the responses here

Who closes people to give. Evidence to select committees? And are there any standards?

Because in the same way that others are expected to be held up to certain standards, and that HR or the party whip or profession association in most jobs would take somebody to task for doing something like that, it feels like there should be somebody formal at the House of Commons that not only can this be retweeyed to do they can see these reprehensible actions but also that formal complaints could be made to. That way action could be taken and replies/explanations sent if you sent in a complaint.

Has anyone told Jess Philips and Sarah Champion and the rest of the committee? They really should know this about a person giving evidence on this topic.

Totally agree

Has anyone told Jess Philips and Sarah Champion and the rest of the committee?

There were multiple Twitter threads in which twitter accounts were copied in - Jess Phillips, Sarah Champion, Maria Miller, The Select Committee, and the Women's and Equalties Department.

There were screen shots sent to the same accounts with the question - 'what do you think about this person's fitness to talk about boundaries and safeguards?'

The name and the incident will be brought up time and time again, like Jess Bradley (who gave oral evidence to the Committee) and Aimee Challoner (ditto the House of Lords). It will be difficult to deny, but I wouldn't expect anyone to respond officially. Too embarressing!

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the civil servant who thought that Diana James was just the sort of credible witness and advocate to put the case for inclusion in women's services.

Not saying I think Diana James was particularly credible, but maybe some people don't think that browsing a sex toys site on public transport is a big deal?

... some people don't think that browsing a sex toys site on public transport is a big deal?

Maybe there are but this is a person who works with survivors of domestic and sexual violence. If anybody should have a deep understanding of how sexually explicit material is not appropriate in public, it should be them.

It's the context of each action or step that's the issue.

I imagine loads of women have at one time or another browsed sites that sell sex toys in their own homes but the thought process at work in this particular situation is odd to say the very least.

1. Travelling on public transport to a publicised government meeting about VAWG where you are a guest speaker.

1. Thinking about sex whilst travelling to the degree that a sex toy website needed to be accessed right at that moment.

1. Angered enough by the blocking of said website to complain publicly on Twitter to the rail company and push the issue with the customer service representative.

1. Consumed to such a degree by the entitlement to access a website with sexual content right at that very moment no thought is given to how this might be perceived by others and reflect on you as an individual on their way to publicly give evidence about VAWG.

The one thing that leaps out was that there appears to have been something about going to give evidence en femme to a Select Committee about VAWG that meant they were overwhelmed by the desire to browse sexually explicit content in public.

I know what conclusion that leads me to.

Me to nauticant

Me to

Thanks - good points and you’ve clarified things for me.

I think browsing that kind of site in public is inappropriate (I wish we could do something to stop men watching porn on trains via their phones) but your posts have clarified how really sinisterly inappropriate James’s behaviour was. Chilling really.

I think browsing that kind of site in public is inappropriate (I wish we could do something to stop men watching porn on trains via their phones) but your posts have clarified how really sinisterly inappropriate James’s behaviour was. Chilling really.

The site James was trying to access is blocked precisely because men watch porn on trains. The reason should be obvious to James. The fact that James felt the need to complain about it speaks volumes about this person's respect for other people's boundaries. It's all me, me, me.

I've just watched the whole thing and found it really interesting.

I was really impressed by Karen Ingala Smith - I hadn't heard of her before and found she said everything I believe in.

I was impressed by Jess Phillips and Sarah Champion, too.

So was Diana looking for sex toys on the journey to that actual meeting?

I was impressed by Jess Phillips and Sarah Champion, too.

Me too. I particularly liked the way Sarah Champion brought the focus back to all service users when James appeared to think that it was just about trans people.

I think Diana's tweet has been pulled, hasn't it?

Yes, exactly!

Interesting that Diana has deleted the tweet. Was it possible that Diana is so saturated in male socialisation that Diana genuinely didn’t realise it’s gross and pervy to shop for sex toys on train WiFi, and then publicly complain about not being allowed to impose that on other passengers? Is it possible that they were that lacking in awareness of normal social behaviour?

Also, until the mighty Karen Ingala-Smith gave evidence this week, I don’t think the committee had heard from a single pro women activist. Instead people they thought were suitable to give evidence include
-Jess Bradley

• Jane Fae
• Aimee Challenor

-Action for trans health

and now Diana.

It’s incredibly unfortunate that so many of their witnesses have turned out to be violent , or perverts, isn’t it? Almost like male perverts have a vested interest in accessing women’s spaces.......

Interestingly Hermione you could also add Edward Lord and Peter Tatchell as those public figures vocal about the need for women to abandon all single sex spaces and reduce safeguarding, who are also on record with rather interesting points around adults having sexual relationships with children.

Jess Bradley? Whose understanding of ethics in public office includes aTumblr record of exposing her penis in public?

Yes I do realise the grammatical inaccuracy of that sentence.

Think you've nailed it, Nauticant. One only hopes the scales will start to fall from a few eyes due to this train incident.