Webchat with John McDonnell Friday 6 December 12:00

[BernardBlacksWineIceLolly]

Just thought I'd give a heads up, doesn't look like it's being promoted yet

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/3760829-Webchat-with-John-McDonnell-MP-Shadow-Chancellor-Friday-6-December-at-12-midday

No doubt we'll want to talk over his answers afterwards!

Is it true what some of the TRAs are saying on Twitter that Swinson refuses to come on Mumsnet?

I think that's probably wise.

Is it true what some of the TRAs are saying on Twitter that Swinson refuses to come on Mumsnet?

She'd need to forewarn all the flannel factories in the world first, such a big order.

The Penis news coverage is very balanced and nuance, with similarly intelligent comments.

This daft woman 🤣

are you saying that posts were actually vanished rather than the deleted message appearing? Have MNHQ commented on what is going on?

are you saying that posts were actually vanished rather than the deleted message appearing?

Yes. My post was vanished on the Phillip Lee thread. Not showing "Message deleted by Mumsnet" - just vanished. No clue that I had asked a question on the thread - and then I got an email threatening me with suspension.

I don't dare ask a question on any webchat now - in case I say the wrong thing at the wrong time.

My post was vanished on the Phillip Lee thread. Not showing "Message deleted by Mumsnet" - just vanished.

Same here. Two posts vanished - I repeated my question because I thought the first one hadn't gone through. I then received a suspension warning by email because I'd asked about the lobbying/Dentons report which was deemed to be more about self-ID than lobbying - even though secretive lobbying was what I really wanted to know about.

So not only did posts disappear without the standard MNHQ deletion message, but the posters were then threatened with suspension?

Apologies for making heavy weather of this, I'm just trying to be clear about what happened.

Floisme - exactly.

MNHQ had said "no more posts about gender self ID" - I didn't think my question was about gender self ID.

Linked maybe - but I asked his opinion on a LibDem peer telling women they are "not feminists" if they are not in favour of gender neutral loos, and other libdem members telling women "we don't want your vote".

I would've like hm to confirm whether or not his party was telling us not to vote for them if we are not in favour of gender neutral toilets.

I said in the Philip Lee webchat that I’d been sitting behind Layla Moran when she announced that she could see people’s souls, and asked how the LibDems planned to make use of her talent if they won the election. I carefully didn’t mention self ID but HQ took it that way anyway & vanished it.

John McDonnell's answers on the self ID questions have made me even more concerned. They were sinister. I am now convinced they will amend the Equality Act to make sure that transwomen cannot be excluded from any women-only spaces. They're just not telling us yet.

I had been toying with voting labour, purely because my friend knows the labour candidate and says he's a good bloke. But I just don't think that I can now.

So my position - Labour - NO (selfID). Lib Dems - NO (self ID). Greens - Let's not even go there. Tories - (No because of brexit.)

I'm back to spoiling my ballot. And sticking one of Posie's stickers on it.

So not only did posts disappear without the standard MNHQ deletion message, but the posters were then threatened with suspension?

Yes. I'm afraid we have not succeeded at all in raising the political consciousness up at MNHQ. By "gender self-ID" I think they meant "anything even tangentially related to trans". They still haven't cottoned on that queer theory has its tentacles everywhere. So:

If your political priority for webchat questions is women's rights - genderism provides the most egregious current example.

If your political priority for webchat questions is child protection - genderism provides the most egregious current example.

If your political priority for webchat questions is freedom of speech - genderism provides the most egregious current example.

If your political priority for webchat questions is the anti-democratic nature of secretive lobbying - genderism provides the most egregious current example.

If your political priority for webchat questions is homophobia - genderism provides the most egregious current example.

And on and on and Ariston.

Additionally, MNHQ does these silly things from time to time and has form for blaming users - if you erase a post without leaving a deletion message, is it any wonder they think something went wrong and post again? You can hardly blame them for multiple offences you caused yourself! Makes you look rather silly!

Another "vanishee" here.

I wrote a reply commmenting on austerity, with a PS about self id and the voting repercussions.

Just gone. No email, no MN removal message in place. No nothing.

Will we be getting a Tory on here for a webchat, I wonder? I would welcome the chance to ask them exactly what their plans are for the GRA and single-sex exemptions, and what has happened to the consultation results and report into rise in girls with ROGD. I also want to know how a conservative party has allowed such a radical ideology to take hold in schools and public institutions to the utter detriment of women, children, and freedom of speech and belief.

You're right, GCAcademic - this has all happened on the Conservative government's watch. Maria Miller has been instrumental in proposed legislative changes. Theresa May and John Bercow have both spoken at the Pink Awards talking about trans rights which will obliterate women's rights but don't worry, we just won't mention that and hopefully they won't notice.

Many institutions have been captured under the Conservative govt - including the civil service, the NHS and the CPS. They need to answer for this.

I also want to know how a conservative party has allowed such a radical ideology to take hold in schools and public institutions to the utter detriment of women, children, and freedom of speech and belief

GC, excellent point. I would also love to see them explain this. How the hell have they allowed this to happen? It seems awfully partisan if there isn’t a Conservative invited to the forum to answer questions.

Theresa May and John Bercow have both spoken at the Pink Awards talking about trans rights

How utterly pathetic. Neither of them could articulate a Conservative principle if they were given a hundred years. Beyond clueless

Fair point, GC but I would like to point out that both the GRA 2003 and the Equality Act 2010 were laws enacted under a Labour government. At the time when the GRA was debated, it was Tories in the Hour of Lords who predicted all the disturbing consequences of the legal fiction that you can change your sex that we are seeing now.

A while ago, someone tweeted the Hansard debate from that time and that was really enlightening. Ann Widdecombe made some pertinent points.

All parties have to be held to account regarding this issue. But we have to give those politicians who understand the problems some credit, even if we disagree with them on most other policies. (And for myself, this would definitely include Ann Widdecombe!)

House of Lords, ugh

They definitely need to answer for this. The regulatory capture is extremely worrying because how can it be unraveled? The Conservatives are absolutely to blame for this and the reason they have allowed it to happen is because like the General fighting the last war, they have been trying to market themselves as Conservative lite so they have embraced this lobby group in order to score woke points. From people who will never vote for them anyway. It is quite infuriating

And guess who is in the House of Lords now? Ruuuuth Huuuunt!!! Hurrah. Bercow will soon be there too.

Someone once said on here that someone high up in govt is really pushing gender ID - and it was an unexpected person. I wondered about Bercow then - he stopped an urgent question in Parliament about Karen White and male sex offenders in women's prisons - and I think he's mates with Edward Lord too. Who will stop at nothing to make everything gender neutral.

It's really no surprise that the trans rights thing has gained such traction, at such astonishing speed - it's being pushed by MEN in POWER.`Plenty of willing women too - but it's the men in power that really get things moving.

Politics - by males for males as usual.

Someone once said on here that someone high up in govt is really pushing gender ID - and it was an unexpected person.

I think James Kirkup said this in one of his articles, and I’m pretty sure it was a member of the cabinet (it would have been May’s cabinet at the time), so not Brecow.

Blimey - wonder who it was?

Politics - by males for males as usual
theflushedzebra
I honestly don’t think it is as usual. I think it’s unprecedented. I also really doubt that the majority of men are in favour of this agenda. What is absolutely extraordinary is that such a niche fixation could achieve such influence with zero scrutiny and zero popular support. I dislike Bercow and his involvement merely confirms my already withering opinions of him

I think this might be the Hansard debate in the HoC

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/feb/23/gender-recognition-bill

It looks like a long but interesting read. Skimming it, I can see Bercow features as well as Anne Widdecombe, who says "No man or woman is an island. When we try to rectify an injustice, we must examine the impact on others and on society. Until we have managed to answer the questions that are raised in that examination, we should not rush into passing the Bill. Again, I stress that even if one accepts the principle—and I make no bones about the fact that I do not —this is a bad Bill."

No man or woman is an island. When we try to rectify an injustice, we must examine the impact on others and on society. Until we have managed to answer the questions that are raised in that examination, we should not rush into passing the Bill. Again, I stress that even if one accepts the principle—and I make no bones about the fact that I do not —this is a bad Bill.

That speech demonstrates integrity, gravitas and foresight. The fact those qualities are absent in many politicians explains why these lobbyists have been able to entrench themselves so deeply into the apparatus of the state.