Lisa Nandy interview demonstrates she still doesn't understand Safeguarding yet & neither do the other Labour leadership candidates.

[R0wantrees]

Interview:
mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1230837769200689155

The violent child rapist referred to by Dr Julia Long is not in prison. Christopher Warton was found guilty of breaching the SHPO last year by a Worcestershire court & ordered to pay a £93 fine, a £30 victim surcharge and £135 in court costs.

So this male offender would be able to aquire a GRC under the proposals which Nandy, Starmer & Long-Bailey all support with such solidarity.

The women's spaces which this 'violent offender' would therefore legitimately have full access to would be female changing rooms, hospital wards, rape services etc

Article:
"A TRANSGENDER woman, previously convicted of raping a girl, has breached a sexual harm prevention order.

Zoe Lynes was sent to a youth detention centre in 2014, after pleading guilty to five counts of rape against a child aged between 13 and 15.

Yesterday [24th January 2019], the 22-year-old, whose name was also given in court as Christopher Worton, admitted breaching her sexual harm prevention order."
transcrimeuk.com/2019/02/08/christopher-worton-zoe-lynes/

Im amazed that no-one in Labour (or those interviewing) has thought to do the most basic background check to establish the details of the case or to listen to what Dr Julia Long actually asks:
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=oUon9j1zJ_E&

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3824781-Lisa-Nandy-says-child-rapists-should-be-in-women-s-prisons-if-they-identify-as-female

Lisa Nandy makes much of having worked for Centrepoint Homeless Charity. Her failure to understand quite basic Safeguarding principles & criminal justice issues should demonstrate how people employed as policy writers /comms etc lack fundamental awarenesses which inform the frontline work

Wasn't it Rebecca Wrong-Daily who tried to make it look like she'd worked on the front line of women's refuges in this way when actually she'd been working at some high level office job and lacked (as became apparent) the first clue of front line experience?

The total lack of life skills and wider life experience of this bunch is frightening, and makes it clear what an awful idea professional politicians are and why the whole culture of it is collapsing for Labour right now. Out of touch, ivory towered, clueless about reality and an electorate too pissed off to speak to them.

Lisa Anne Ecky-Thump Nandy, daughter of the head of the Equal Opportunites Commission and the Runnymede Trust, grandaughter of a Liberal MP made a baron.

Less road to Wigan Pier, more rowed to Wigan with grandad a peer.

I thought that was Jess Phillips (may well be wrong though)

wellbehavedwomen,
I don't think it's about "keeping the Momentum lot on board" - Nandy has very little support among Momentum. Richard Burgon, on the other hand, who is a big fan of Momentum and very close to its politics, hasn't signed the TRA pledge, and Laura Pidcock, who might be a Corbynite candidate for the leadership if she hadn't lost her seat, is known to oppose the TRA pledge as well! Moreover, hardline supporters of TRAs include centrists such as many Lib Dems.

It's shocking really.

It's by design.
There is no excuse for it, but keeping people just ignorant enough that they don't want to research, and arrogant enough to feel they don't need to is absolutely done by design.

She was a researcher for Centrepoint from 2003 to 2005.

She's misrepresented herself and allowing people to think she was frontline staff.

Didn't Jess Phillips do the same? Claimed to "run a Women's Aid" when she was actually a Business Development Manager, and therefore responsible only for fundraising and bringing in contracts to provide services - no contact with actual women clients at all in that role, nor their data, surely? That would be a wholly office-based role. And she wasn't in charge of anything at that level, either. (If she genuinely did run one, why is there nothing available anywhere to indicate that?)

If the facts are indeed that they never had any direct contact with the clients, nor responsibility for their safeguarding, then they're using vulnerable people they never even met, but whose needs paid their salaries, to justify throwing others like them under the fucking bus. They're massaging the facts out of all recognition in pretending they had front line responsibilities when they didn't, so they know how the safeguarding and risk assessment works,when they don't. And they're also drowning out voices of people like Karen Ingala Smith, who did and does work on the ground in the sector, and is therefore genuinely expert. Rhona Hotchkiss, too.

Petty shameful.

@transdimensional - yeah, that's probably fair. I'm jaded by my own exposure to Momentum bros. One grandly pronounced that it's transphobic to say that women's voices aren't being heard when only transwomen are heard, because transwomen ARE women so saying any other sort of woman needs input is hideously bigoted.

This man would also self-identify as a feminist.

But yeah, I am probably just sick to the back teeth of the Momentum lot I know. (All RLB fans.) The rot goes rather deeper, doesn't it. I mourn the party that once sought to uplift women, and knew what they were.

At the LGBTetc Labour char show hustings one of the panel said that 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 homeless people are 'LGBT'. Does anyone know where that figure comes from? It doesn't ring true to me at all

I think it might be referring to 2018 Albert Kennedy Trust's findings about young people who are homeless?

Big Issue:
"Young people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender comprise up to 24 per cent of the youth homeless population, each at a cost of £24,000-£30,000 to the state. Last year the Albert Kennedy Trust, an organisation that supports young LGBT people, or those living in hostile environments, estimated that 150,000 were homeless or at risk of homelessness as a result of intolerance."

www.bigissue.com/latest/many-young-lgbt-people-britain-homeless/

It doesnt link to the original research though

Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

When politicians and journalists repeat a false claim, after having had the facts of the matter explained to them, I am always reminded of this 100 year old quote.

I used to be a member of Momentum - but am backing Starmer. Was thinking of backing Nandy until I found out how strongly she backs this policy.

The original research is here. And it is indeed about young people, not whole population. They also seem to cite "AKT 2015" to support that intitial claim (so they seem to be citing AKT 2015 as evidence that AKT2015 is well founded upon other data, which... what? I have never seen a circular citation in my own field. People cite their own previous studies, of course, but they don't cite a study as evidence for itself... is that normal in some fields?) and Cull, et al, 2006.

A more reliable set of data is an overview by the government, less than a year old, of all the relevant research. Including the two studies above. That seems to indicate that more often than not, it's multi-factorial. That makes sense. A child from a sane, loving home who happens to be LGBT is unlikely to end up homeless. One who grew up in care, and is accordingly vulnerable, would have to contend with homophobia or transphobia without that buffer and sanctuary. And autism is correlated with both homelessness, and increased probability of LGBT, too. Again, multi-factorial.

It seems pretty logical that LGBT young people are more at risk of homelessness, especially with the Cull et al study having being published in 2006, so it relies on evidence from around the Millennium which was a more homophobic time. Hopefully, hopefully, things are better now (then again, rates of homelessness are rocketing. So LGBT founded bigotry may have fallen, but overall homelessness won't have done). I also know a transwoman of 58 whose family - mother and sibling - cut off all contact in real horror and rage. Awful people, and I can't imagine they'd have been any pleasanter 30 years earlier. It does happen. I just don't think claims that someone's LGBT status is always primarily causal, or citing exact statistical levels of LGBT homelessness (without that applying to young people especially, and which not actually supported by the available data they seem to be relying on, anyway, and when that data is made up mostly of vox pops and not weighted for statistical probability) is as robust as it might be, and that undermines the legitimacy of the claims. As with a lot of the manipulative way data is used around these issues.

Sorry @SpartacusLangClegicus, x posted.

Mockers is right, I think Jess also had a political Grandfather.

The only think I have noticed is that she's started to say that women's spaces must be protected, and Labour must be able to serve both communities, just no real illustration of how.

I'm really thinking this is all her very first baptism into any of this debate at all. And she's not being shown the violence on the tra side as all those around her are only showing the be kind and we are vulnerable bits.

I'm probably naive to be even slightly hopeful but I noticed in some sort of husting thing with Emily T and the rest she was the only one to say that she'd use an independent enquiry to look at antisemitism. I would hope she'd use the same approach to anything around this debate. Hope...

I'm not labour but I'd thought from the start I'd probably vote KS. I suspect he's keeping Schtum as he knows he's out of his depth.

One who grew up in care, and is accordingly vulnerable, would have to contend with homophobia or transphobia without that buffer and sanctuary. And autism is correlated with both homelessness, and increased probability of LGBT, too. Again, multi-factorial.

Without a doubt children & young people who have been abused &/or been in care will be at significantly higher risk of homelessness.

Its a shame that there isnt a lobby for young people leaving care with a fraction of the money & influence 'trans youth' organisations have.

I'm not labour but I'd thought from the start I'd probably vote KS. I suspect he's keeping Schtum as he knows he's out of his depth.

At the Manchester 'hustings' he committed to Benjamin Cohen of Pink News that within first 100 days of leadership he would push the government to implement sex self-id.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3390910-Can-we-talk-about-Pink-News-Collecting-examples-of-their-propaganda

Citing a study to support the findings of the same study has got to be the ultimate example of "begging the question". I bet they do it every bit as often as they cite surveys masquerading as studies, confident that most people do not check.