MOMA Bill back in the Commons today, Monday 1st March 5.15pm

[ConservativesForWomen]

New thread as previous one almost full.

List of speakers here, expected start time 5.15pm:

commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/document/45568/html

merrymouse yes I know, but still hoping that someone will report on this nonsense...

The more they ignore reporting on it, the more obvious their agenda is. By they I mean Guardian BBC etc

Thing is, many of us also read the Spectator, Times, Private Eye, Economist. We know you are deliberately avoiding it. And we know why.

The Economist is pretty solidly GC
and yes, Private Eye are covering stuff quite well.

New Scientist had a wobble
(articles that used the phrase "assigned at birth" )
but seem to be improving.

yes, Crispin. Yes it has. Want to hear about it?

Oh you'll never convince him: witness the multiple attempts to talk people through this on FWR. It'll be misreported/the purity of the source is in doubt/it's not peer reviewed/you shouldn't predicate on one case (although that's how safeguarding progresses)/MY chosen source (which is neither peer reviewed nor credible and has been debunked) says this....

The bottom line is, in his world where emotions and feelings create reality, that fact has been selected out.

Whether someone who selects out facts to a personal agenda that disadvantages 51% of the electorate, and represents biased and unfair representation should be in a position of public responsibility that requires impartiality and fairness, and ideas that work equally for all instead of some at the cost of others? Well that's certainly a conversation that should be held. Yes.

world where emotions and feelings create reality

Yes, indeed. Harder to kill a phantom than a reality, and this debate certainly seems to prove it.

I've just emailed my MP and Jacob Rees-Mogg to call for the resignation of Penny Mordaunt for her breach of the Ministerial code and deliberately making a false statement to Parliament re twaw/tmam. JRM's contact email is on my website - he has gone up in my estimation for making himself accessible to us.

I feel empowered.

further advice here:

twitter.com/CUPWomensPledge/status/1366784789764857864

New T-shirt idea: "I'D RATHER BE A JEREMY HUNT THAN A CRISPIN BLUNT..."

("Jeremy Hunt" being Mhairi Black-speak for "cunt", for anyone who missed that lovely episode.)

OK, I'll see myself out .

Maduxia
I think it was James Naughtie live on the Radio 4 Today Programme who made that particular pronunciation immortal

ListeningQuietly - thanks, just checked that out - how did I not know that? All this time I have thought that Mhairi Black was a connoisseur of rhyming slang. (Nevertheless - I still kind of want the T-shirt!)

For those who think its an urban myth

I remember it happening ....

Listening DP and I always say '...Brooooadband' like that because of how funny that clip is. It's on our list of 'things to listen to when you're feeling a bit grumpy'

I remember it happening ....

Same. It was hilarious. Half the reason I still live to Today is in hope of a repeat.

How much is this back and forth debate on an issue (which is perfectly self evident) costing?

Next on the agenda "is the sky falling down?"

@MichelleofzeResistance

yes, Crispin. Yes it has. Want to hear about it?

Oh you'll never convince him: witness the multiple attempts to talk people through this on FWR. It'll be misreported/the purity of the source is in doubt/it's not peer reviewed/you shouldn't predicate on one case (although that's how safeguarding progresses)/MY chosen source (which is neither peer reviewed nor credible and has been debunked) says this....

The bottom line is, in his world where emotions and feelings create reality, that fact has been selected out.

Whether someone who selects out facts to a personal agenda that disadvantages 51% of the electorate, and represents biased and unfair representation should be in a position of public responsibility that requires impartiality and fairness, and ideas that work equally for all instead of some at the cost of others? Well that's certainly a conversation that should be held. Yes.

So, Crispin we shouldn't have made any changes to the laws around safeguarding after paedophile murderer Liam Huntley? After all, I am sure all school caretakers aren't paedophile murderers and we wouldn't want to predicate on one case, would we? I mean what could possibly go wrong?

So, Crispin we shouldn't have made any changes to the laws around safeguarding after paedophile murderer Liam Huntley?

I won't name the straw men that would be instantly hurled out in response to that one, but any experienced feminist could produce a list off the top of their heads.

In this alternative reality you are never, never going to convince them with logic or with basic appeals to human empathy, that women have any needs or issues incompatible with their agenda. You won't. Those facts have been edited out. This is an ideology that is based on putting aside inconvenient facts and then calling everyone names for mentioning them.

See relationships board: You can only have a reasonable discussion where both sides are capable of being reasonable. And no, it's not that the person being so absolutely divorced from reasonability has not yet had enough information: its that they will never accept any fact that they do not emotionally agree with.

• them used as I have no idea of Crispin's preferred pronouns

@MichelleofzeResistance

So, Crispin we shouldn't have made any changes to the laws around safeguarding after paedophile murderer Liam Huntley?

I won't name the straw men that would be instantly hurled out in response to that one, but any experienced feminist could produce a list off the top of their heads.

In this alternative reality you are never, never going to convince them with logic or with basic appeals to human empathy, that women have any needs or issues incompatible with their agenda. You won't. Those facts have been edited out. This is an ideology that is based on putting aside inconvenient facts and then calling everyone names for mentioning them.

See relationships board: You can only have a reasonable discussion where both sides are capable of being reasonable. And no, it's not that the person being so absolutely divorced from reasonability has not yet had enough information: its that they will never accept any fact that they do not emotionally agree with.

So true, Michelle, so true.

ILGA Europe "enforcing LGBTI rights across the union".

Not this union you're not.

I have also emailed Jacob Rees-Mogg gardenbird, thanks for the suggestion.

"enforcing LGBTI rights across the union".

As an 'L' person you're damaging my rights, not enforcing them Baroness Barker.

Please don't say you're doing this in my name or because you have the faintest interest in my wellbeing as a lesbian. You're not using me to excuse yourself.