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

Ah well, there we go, they're all rubbish.

Luckily I've just seen a times article that says the opposite will be happening.

Re homelessness, this is when "intersectionality" really does need to be thought of and the fact that huge numbers of trans people have other mh conditions and/ or asd will certainly be a factor. Many have also sadly been victims of csa.

There's a thread already but this is the times report.

go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d19ad4fe-54d9-11ea-a869-24971f770bf3?shareToken

Sorry this is better:

GRC changes dropped? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3829568-GRC-changes-dropped

As a business development manager Jess may have had contact with women using services collecting evidence for funding applications through interviews, focus groups or the observation of activities. In a small organisation you get a pretty good idea of the issues anyway. But I do agree that both women, maybe Lisa Nandy more so, have presented as if they have frontline experience. And I didn't realise Lisa Nandy had quite such a connected background, which makes me even crosser she's taking rights away from working class women who are less likely to be able to buy themselves out of difficult situations.

Another times article I've just seen regarding labour and this whole debacle.

I don't subscribe though so can't read it all:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-at-war-over-debate-on-trans-rights-q9tqn8t5n

Does nandy actually believe this "Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

And if so does she apply this to any other area of psychiatry?

If someone who is psychotic identifies as mentally well do we not only allow but in fact encourage them to go off their meds? If not, why not? Surely they know better than the psychiatrist assessing them?

"Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

And in bold, because it's just so. fucking. stupid.

"Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

I don't even know where to start. It's just batshit.

"Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

It's a way of negating anyone who has medical and clinical expertise in this area. The individual always knows best - no matter what.

Hey Lisa! How about, as an elected MP, listening to more than one side.

How about listening to Dr Marcus Evans and Dr David Bell and Kirsty Entwistle - all ex-Tavistock clinicians and experts in this field.

How about listening to parents of gender-non conforming children and young adults who are desperate to prevent permanent harm being done to their children in the name of an ideology that insists on an affirmation only pathway following self-diagnosis.

How about listening to detransitioners who - let's face it - are most certainly the people that know.

Nandy rows back a bit on Sophie Ridge this morning: news.sky.com/story/live-environment-secretary-george-eustice-questioned-over-government-flood-response-11941143

Asked whether she agreed with one of the points in a pledge card backing kicking people out of the party from two women's rights organisations, Nandy says it "gave me pause for thought"

"The sentiment of the pledge about protecting trans rights... is really important ," she continues.

"I don't think prescribing is the right way to deal with disciplinary issues within the Labour Party.

"The question is always about individual behaviour."

She says it's right to recognise there are people who fought for women-only spaces who "want to have a proper debate about how we best protect that".

"With hindsight if we could all have signed a pledge card at the beginning to say that we wouldn't sign pledge cards we'd probably be in a much better place," she jokes, because pledge cards are being used to "pit people against each other", citing Brexit and the Israel/ Palestine debate.

"With hindsight if we could all have signed a pledge card at the beginning to say that we wouldn't sign pledge cards we'd probably be in a much better place," she jokes,

Not true though for the women impacted by sex-self id policies.

The Lisa Nandy backtrack this morning is something else.

Rob Powell @robpowellnews
^NEW: Labour leadership contender @lisanandy
says she signed the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights pledge because the sentiment of it was right but adds that proscribing organisations is not the way forward and that part of the pledge did give her "pause for thought" #ridge^

REMINDER: Point nine of this pledge card (signed by Nandy and RLB, but not Starmer) has sparked an argument within Labour as it says that groups like Woman’s Place UK and LGB Alliance are trans-exclusionist hate groups...

MORE: Lisa Nandy says that pledge cards are not helpful as they tend to pit people against each other and that all the Labour leadership contenders should have signed a pledge card vowing not to sign pledge cards! #ridge

Also a reminder that Nandy didn't think that sex offenders in women's prisons was an issue...

Also a reminder that Nandy didn't think that sex offenders in women's prisons was an issue...

Nor that there was an issue with some male rapists &/or violent offenders opting to have their crimes recorded as being committed by a female.

"gave me pause for thought"

Bullshit. If she really thought that she could have signed the other pledge, the one Starmer signed.

"gave me pause for thought"

"...that people are being very tiresome about not listening to me or letting me do just what I want".

"So, I've paused and now realise that I need to re-frame the education and expulsion as an opportunity to take a break in a gulag. We'll schedule the dates and won't take no for an answer because we have so many concerns about you".

"With hindsight if we could all have signed a pledge card at the beginning to say that we wouldn't sign pledge cards we'd probably be in a much better place,"

And I'd unpack that as meaning "We would have had a good, no blame reason not to have to either sign or be declaimed as a heretic, and to not have to make plain our position before people voted".

I well understand these women had real reason to fear not signing: the political lobby that would have reacted are damn scary, particularly to women. I have more respect for the women candidates who have nailed their colours to the mast than I do for Starmer who is as Stoned as they are, but not going to tell voters what he believes in and what he will do to them until he's safely in power and it's too late for them to prevent him.

"gave me pause for thought"

But not enough to decide that maybe it would be better to do her own thinking instead of mindlessly going along with the mob.

If you want to be a leader you should be prepared to lead, not follow. On seeing that pledge she should have read, digested, considered and only then decided whether to sign. If you're the sort of person who signs because it's what everyone else is doing or because someone has told you it's the right thing to do, you're not fit to be any sort of leader.

The bombardment, harassment and pressure tactics used by this political lobby when they want an individual or organisation to do something are also well known. I'm sure all these women were absolutely hammered to sign.

I well understand these women had real reason to fear not signing: the political lobby that would have reacted are damn scary, particularly to women.

But these are people who have ambitions to be prime minister. If they are so weak that they capitulate in the face of a few noisy activists on twitter and some extremists in their own party, how would they react to a real violent threat to the country?

Personally, I'd like to see more backbone and integrity in our elected representatives.

She thought about her own chances of winning the leadership election. That is all.

Personally, I'd like to see more backbone and integrity in our elected representatives.

Good point.

I'm sure all these women were absolutely hammered to sign.

Unless they literally had a gun to their heads they could have chosen not to. There may have been consequences for not doing so, but the fact remains they made a choice.

The problem for Nandy and the others is that they never took the opportunities presented to them to meet with WPUK, and others, in parliament - when given that opportunity, last year. If they had been more well informed, and in a more rounded way than they would not have had to think on the hoof when questioned in public, and would not have fallen straight into the mantras and lines promoted by the training manual.

"Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success."