Shocking behaviour towards lesbians at Leeds 'pride' today

[MrsSnippyPants]

twitter.com/LilyLilyMaynard/status/1158020993006411779?s=20

Another deflection. One would think they had something to hide

It is not deflecting to question and not all sheep like swallow everything said, this place is bonkers.
Nothing to hide at all, very average SAHM here

Your belief is utterly irrelevant roses.

You are part of the problem. Pretending to condemn these people, whilst defending them, isnt something you can carry off I'm afraid.

Aimee Challoner was at one pride, wasn't they?
Was theys fiance there as well?
Did Jess Bradley go?
What about the NSPCC toilet guy?
Or if they did not go to Leeds Pride, does it not matter?

this place is bonkers.

Anyone is free to depart any time they wish and also free to never return.

To most people, joining the dots between european pride pedo twitter posts, dodgy fetishists at uk pride, openly pedo advocating men leading brighton pride etc etc... leads to a very strong possibility of there being actual pedophiles within the LGBT movement and at uk pride events.

I've asked you Roses and Early why you are so desperate to try to prove this isn't the case. A generous guess would be that you're just massively petty obsessed with point scoring? If that's the case why not just say that in the first place?

'It'd save all this pages of crap where you get into arguments for asking a bloody question lol'

I've asked you Roses and Early why you are so desperate to try to prove this isn't the case. A generous guess would be that you're just massively petty obsessed with point scoring?

Misogyny.

Careful Datun, they'll be getting their bingo cards out

You’re deliberately misunderstanding.

Firstly, it is ridiculous to lie about things then question why we don’t believe you.

Secondly, we’ve said that MAPs will want to jump on LGBT, we’ve asked for evidence they’ve openly done this and been accepted.

No one has provided this, so now we’re just defending pedophiles? No I’m defending the LGBT people.

Lesbians are at pride too, you can’t just drop the L when it suits you and call it GBT ffs.

An absence of evidence does not equate with evidence of absence.

How poetic yet utterly hypocritical jacky

I rather suspect that some of the critics here in this thread may not live in the UK. They seem to know nothing of UK law.

Meanwhile, none have still explained why they failed to acknowledge that those ideology advocates who staged such an aggressive confrontation toward the small group of women in Leeds could have chosen alternative behaviour.

Like bloody robots.

Quick discredit them before someone thinks for themselves!

Why are you ignoring the evidence Early?
Why?

Lesbians are at pride too, you can’t just drop the L when it suits you and call it GBT ffs.

Wrong. That's exactly what they can do. And are doing. Get the L Out, it's called.

Secondly, we’ve said that MAPs will want to jump on LGBT, we’ve asked for evidence they’ve openly done this and been accepted.

Acceptance without exception.

Can I just summarise.
Early and Roses don't care about the massive amounts of worrying evidence re pedophiles. They think it is one bloke in Berlin.
They also don't mind if a small group of women who are standing up for being lesbians at Pride are shouted at and intimidated by a large group of mostly men.
Now - you don't care about these things - what's your point? What are you doing here? Telling us it's all our fault?

Lesbians are at pride too, you can’t just drop the L when it suits you and call it GBT ffs.

Of course I can. Anyone can do anything with words and acronyms these days, can't they?

An absence of evidence does not equate with evidence of absence.

How poetic yet utterly hypocritical jacky

How is this hypocritical? Please could you explain in more detail. Thank you.

Roses and Early neither of you rejected the “Maps at Pride” premise, when it was a useful tool with which to berate the 8 (actually 13) lesbians or us.

Your comments accepted that they were a issue - as much as anyone else’s did (other than me - mea culpa). Asking questions is good.

Here’s one for you. Does anything mentioned in this thread give you pause about child safeguarding? And if so, what?

I’ve said several times jacky that it is their right to protest back.

Why did the lesbians choose to protest at pride?
Why didn’t they go elsewhere?
Why did they use a megaphone?
Why did they say to ‘get out of pride’?
Why are they speaking for lesbians?
Why do they have a banner about transgender ideology rather than just support themselves?
Why didn’t they back down when crowds formed?

Because it is their right to do what they please as long as it’s non violent. No one else’s decision

People are allowed to be angry, they can stand up for themselves and what they believe in.

Neither side were violent, they did not scream in each other’s faces or threaten one another in anyway. They protested. Yes there were far far more on the other side, but that’s something I assume the woman were expecting anyway given previous events so they obviously have the balls and bravery for it.

Can I just summarise. Early and Roses don't care about the massive amounts of worrying evidence re pedophiles. They think it is one bloke in Berlin

Never, anywhere, ever said anything of the sort, please don't twist and put words in my mouth to paint as we don't care about paedophiles.
Of course I bloody do, I've even said they have NO place at Pride, don't make out I haven't said that and said the opposite.
FFS

Ahhh.... ok so if I've got this right Early what you're saying is that until someone can actually prove that pedophiles are at (and accepted at) uk (specifically) pride events, you think it is in the interest of the reputation of the LGBT movement to deny this might be happening?

Oh dear. I think this loyalty is backfiring. Unfortunately, your obsession with trying to prove people wrong is looking very much like you are trying to hide the obvious to everyone else fact that pedophiles are within the movement all ready.

I’ve said several times jacky that it is their right to protest back.

And I believe I responded with agreement that a counter protest is an option. What I challenged though is that it was chosen by those ideology advocates to stage an aggressive confrontation as the means for that counter protest.

You have repeatedly failed to challenge the fact of that aggressive confrontation which leads me to the assumption that you support it in this instance.

For the record (as if it needs spelling out)
MAPS have absolutely no place at pride, or anywhere for that matter.