Dr Philip Lee, LibDem candidate shows us who he is

[MrsSnippyPants]

In my opinion he didn't cover himself in glory on the issue of women's rights. His answer on prisons showed where his priorities lie. Did I misinterpret him?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/3758248-Webchat-with-Dr-Phillip-Lee-LibDem-candidate-for-Wokingham-on-Tuesday-3-December-at-2pm?msgid=92040789

[EpicShitDippedBatBiscuit]

What a total fudge that was. Not surprised though.

[GeordieTerf]

He fits right in with the Lib Dems, that's for sure.

[crossandperplexed]

I wonder why MN deleted comments on his answers?

[crossandperplexed]

I think there will be many more women who won't now be voting for the LibDems. His responses were disappointing and I would have expected more from a qualified medical doctor TBH.

[SutterCane]

Politics and policies can often be complex and it's really important in a healthy democracy that individuals and political parties can discuss challenging issues honestly and in an informed way.

It's a bit ironic that this was his parting comment when the LD's response to GC women hasn't been to have an honest and informed discussion but to tell them they're not welcome.

[GeordieTerf]

As a doctor, what is his specialism?

[BarbaraStrozzi]

I wonder why MN deleted comments on his answers?

Because they mentioned awkward cases like Karen White, Lisa Hauxwell, Paris Green, I'm guessing.

[LangCleg]

Fascinating. I note that MNHQ banned too many questions on sex self ID. My question was about ultra vires lobbying being a danger to democracy, the political process and the rule of law as it pertains to the Children Act (I cited the recent Dentons report) but MNHQ deleted it. More than once.

So I don't know where the LibDems stand on the question of aggressive lobbying behind closed doors.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

It's obvious that any candidate coming on here would be asked those questions so a. they should be prepared to answer the questions and b. MNHQ shouldn't be shielding them from the questions that their users want to ask.

[LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD]

I got deleted for throwing peanuts from the monkey gallery.

I wasn’t sweary or insulting or anything! I merely asked for clarification a few points and terminology...

[BarbaraStrozzi]

My question was about ultra vires lobbying being a danger to democracy, the political process and the rule of law as it pertains to the Children Act (I cited the recent Dentons report) but MNHQ deleted it.

And yet it is such an important question. Detach this from the trans issue. Do we really want a political system where some things (any things, it doesn't matter what the issue is) can be lobbied for behind closed doors while public discussion of them is off limits?

I really recommend people read Merchants of Doubt (Amazon link in case you don't want to click). It's a fantastic book, documenting the techniques of lobbyists for big tobacco and big oil.

What it really needs is an extra chapter about what happens if you put that lobbying on steroids, by not merely doing it, but trying to suppress all discussion of the fact that it's going on (even to the extent of trying to make such discussion illegal).

Imagine if the tobacco companies had been able to use spurious arguments about privacy or commercial confidentiality to stop anyone revealing the fact that their product, when used as intended, killed about half of its users.

[LangCleg]

I've just read the thread.

Oh, Justine.

[Redshoeblueshoe]

Fekko I saw your post it wasn't rude.
But he really didn't want women's votes.

[theflushedzebra]

My question wasn't just deleted - it was completely erased from the thread - no trace of my name on there anymore.

Which is interesting because I didn't know HQ could do that!

Wasn't too impressed with his answers - which seemed to be "I prioritise everybody to shut you silly women up - but I prioritise the person the changing gender particularly.

Why? Are women suddely not vulnerable? Males who identify as women suddenly are more vulnerable than actual women? Don't see a problem with penises in women's prisons? No problems at all with that? - or are we just going down Canada's route - and start handing out the morning after pill NQA ?

[LangCleg]

And yet it is such an important question. Detach this from the trans issue. Do we really want a political system where some things (any things, it doesn't matter what the issue is) can be lobbied for behind closed doors while public discussion of them is off limits?

Precisely. I did point this out cos thought my question might be deleted. It was deleted anyway.

Orwellian.

[LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD]

But he really didn't want women's votes. just as well then eh?

[nauticant]

A while back I wrote to the Lib Dem candidate for round here. I ask for comments on spousal consent, "how will your proposed changes protect the women?", on statements by leading Lib Dems that refuges should be totally open to trans women, and the aggressive behaviour by Lib Dem twitter accounts. I deliberately avoided the most problematic aspects of Lib Dems + trans in the hope of soliciting a response.

No response. This is in a constituency that for particular reasons could now be marginal and I'm being absolutely bombarded by Lib Dem stuff coming through the letterbox. Vastly more stuff than the other parties.

[theflushedzebra]

They closed the thread PDQ too.

Dear Phillip, I'm sorry we've got so any harpies on mumsnet, who seem to want to talk about their rights being flushed down the toilet, and penises in women's safe spaces, and stuff - but don't worry, we've erased them. Love, MNHQ.

Hey ho. Women's spaces were nice while we had them, weren't they?

[Redshoeblueshoe]

What pissed me off was as a GP I would expect him to know that plenty of TW keep their penises.
That annoys me, that he shows he just doesn't give a fuck about women and girls

[crossandperplexed]

What is the point of a webchat if questions are censored?

[crossandperplexed]

There is a SNP webchat coming up. There are already some similar questions posted. I wonder if they will be deleted?

[OldCrone]

Thanks for starting this thread. I missed the webchat while it was live, so by the time I read it I could no longer post on it, and I really wanted to comment about the contradictions in his answers.

He said this:

Women in prison have disproportionately been victims of physical, emotional and sexual abuse both as children and as adults. Too many of them are victims themselves.

Then a couple of minutes later, this:

The point I'm making is that it would wrong to leave somebody in a male prison who is self ID-ing as a woman because they can be vulnerable to abuse... at the forefront of my mind is the security of everyone involved, particularly the person who is changing their gender

So he recognises that female prisoners are often victims of male violence, and yet he still thinks it is more important to consider the 'security' of the male person who self-identifies as a woman than the safety of the women that male person is to be incarcerated with.

What is going on in his head? Does he think women aren't actually human, or what?

[LangCleg]

Even David Cameron (boo, hiss) warned about lobbying being the political scandal beyond all other political scandals, that will blow, way back in 2010.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7189466/David-Cameron-warns-lobbying-is-next-political-scandal.html

And yet here is prima facie evidence of it, from the horse's own mouth and about child protection - but it's a question too far for a parenting website during an election campaign?

I'm not quite sure what to do with my thoughts at the moment.

[Germ1360]

These things are always cack. MN tell us to stop asking the same question that they haven't answered. Or they say some platitudinous guff about prioritising everyone (look up the meaning of the word: you can't prioritise everyone. Duh.). Then they bugger off. Load of shit