Entire Pride in London advisory board resigns citing 'hostile environment'

[stumbledin]

Every member of Pride in London’s community advisory board has resigned citing an alleged culture of bullying and a “hostile environment” for people of colour volunteers.

The resignation of the board on Thursday comes after several directors stepped down, including Pride in London’s most senior black volunteer, deepening a race crisis within the organisation behind the UK’s largest Pride march.

The resignation letter calls for new leadership to take the organisation forward and for an independent investigation by the mayor’s office into allegations of marginalisation and bullying.

The community advisory board (CAB), made up of 10 individuals, was established in 2012 to advise the directors on questions of inclusivity and help the body meet its commitment to openness and transparency.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/18/entire-pride-in-london-advisory-board-resigns-bullying-claims

(Popcorn)

Fuck em'.

The best thing to come out if Pride in recent years, are the wonderful pictures of the Get the L Out gals.

There's also a Black Pride isn't there (?)

Many black women, have long complained that trans arguments are racist.

By singling out 'black women' as a sub group of 'women' and failing to recognise the specific issues facing them (eg. FGM), trans activists have royally pissed off many black activists.

As many of these woke warriors are predominantly the whitest of the white, the culture clash can become toxic.

@PurpleHoodie

(Popcorn)

Fuck em'.

The best thing to come out if Pride in recent years, are the wonderful pictures of the Get the L Out gals.

There's also a Black Pride isn't there (?)

🍿 🍿 🍿 Fully agree hoist by their own petard!

I had to reread that twice because I thought I'd misunderstood. But the phrasing is clear. They're accused of bullying their volunteers.

I'm not sure on how it all works, but were the people accused of being responsible for the hostile environment paid management? Well they can jolly well sort it all out.

Aren't these things culture clashes. White MC board members telling everyone else what to do and how to think? Seems a confusing situation. I had to read it twice too and I'm still trying to work out what's really going on

Blimey.

I tried to interpret that yesterday but there were so many holes in the reporting I couldn't fully understand the issue. It reads like a sensitive criminal case where the media have to omit lots of details in case it prejudices the case.

Then I realised... it's the Guardian, who have of course contributed woefully to the current situation of the left eating itself. Their editorial board will be tying themselves in knots trying to report this without accidentally saying anything negative about any particular group.
And if it is the case that black LGB activists are pissed at racist arguments being levelled by trans activists, well, how on earth can LOJ report on that without getting a bollocking by the TRAs!

I had to read it twice too and I'm still trying to work out what's really going on

I doubt the details of the specific case are important. What we can be pretty certain of is it yet another implosion by purity spiral, with lots of people actually bullying in the name of anti-bullying.

The only thing more destructive than a Woke versus anti-Woke fight (like we're seeing in the Green Party or SNP) is what comes next if the Woke get full control - fully-Woke organisation infighting where they're all trying to kick each other off the oppression ladder.

🍿🍿🍿

Many black women, have long complained that trans arguments are racist

and TRAs often accuse opponents of being adherents of 'white feminism'

Same as Amnesty - bullying is a feature.
Seems like there is some clash over the inclusion of police and capitalist organisations as well. Pushback on the commercialisation of LBGT.

Working in the third sector Necessary I confirm that completely 😆😆 this will run and run and run.

prideinlondon.org/about-us

Pride has become a very controlled event, the days of people just showing up on the day and marching to a festival in a park are long gone. Nowadays you have to book tockets and be part of registered organisation, often a work related group.

It sounds awful

From the Pride website. We also have a Community Advisory Board, which scrutinises the decisions of the board and provides guidance on inclusivity and transparency. Perhaps the board don't like the inclusion of the police (what a shame because they're really, really lovely Stonewall Champions) because BLM want to defund and the Advisory Board are probably wanting Police involvement because police would rather back TW than women - perhaps

This is going to be fun. Now looking a little clearer

I'm a bit confused.

Watching with popcorn as a bisexual ‘POC’ (strange how black and POC are two separate categories)

Wasn't that the case during aparthied in South Africa?

Is this a case of applied intersectionality reaching its inevitable conclusion. It's hard to know what has actually happened because the reporting is so vague.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/pride-london-accused-ignoring-black-20197285.amp

"Recently, it started from a conversation around the policy of people entering the parade. I spoke passionately about tackling racism being a value we care about. We shouldn't ignore racism, misogyny and Islamophobia.

"But they only seemed interested in two protected characteristics: sex and gender.

"To see this happen in 2020 in the wake of Black Lives Matter. I shouldn't have to be explaining that we should be trying to include all of these protected characteristics.

"Here I am at a human rights organisation who should understand these issues.

"Being told that it's 'not at core' of what the organisation is about. That really set me off.

The Guardian reporter doesn't want to be pulled in, but if you read the links in the article, the tensions get clearer.

medium.com/@rhammelafflick/why-i-left-pride-40df55afc6f5

[quote PotholeHellhole]The Guardian reporter doesn't want to be pulled in, but if you read the links in the article, the tensions get clearer.

medium.com/@rhammelafflick/why-i-left-pride-40df55afc6f5[/quote]
I've just read that article and I'm none the wiser.

Lots of emotive words which is the trademark of intersectional writing, but no clear examples of what is wrong or what changes are expected. I'm not saying people have to name names or anything, but everything in that article is so damn vague.

What is the actual problem? Are people upset because black and other marginalised groups are not being appointed to the Board or something? Have people been harassed? What sort of 'harmful behaviours' are we talking about?

What kind of action or changes are being expected or demanded? What would satisfy those in marginalised groups?

My takeaway from it was a persistent culture of "some people are more equal than others" and that some forms of discrimination had tangibly been treated as higher priority to tackle than racism.

I found that confusing .Surely for an LGBT organisation discrimination against someone who is LGBT is their main purpose. Not that they should be racist but they are not BLM. You would not expect BLM to put LGBT issues first .

@elgreco

I found that confusing .Surely for an LGBT organisation discrimination against someone who is LGBT is their main purpose. Not that they should be racist but they are not BLM. You would not expect BLM to put LGBT issues first .

Yes I found that strange as well. I initially wondered if they meant showing support for black, Asian and other minorities who are LGBT, but the article seemed to indicate there's an expectation for Pride to also support groups that aren't related to LGBT rights at all, which is bizarre.

Pride signed a Queers against Racism pledge stating it would be “active in politically supporting Black liberation movements, communities, organisations, activists and initiatives regardless of whether they are LGBTQIA+ specific because we must fight for the liberation of all”.

Have read some of the links posted and I first of all assumed that the diverse advisory group was finding they were just some sort of window dressing. ie a group of presumably white people just wanted them to not upset their right to have a big party with lots of men dressing up and being naughtily shocking.

so I think that is part of it, and the organising group not making any effort to ensure Gay men from BME communities are involved (I am assuming they dont care about lesbians in line with Stonewall teaching!). But I think it was also about other groups who book (pay a high price?) to have a place on the parade and that the organisers were sort of lets just take the money, rather than thinking what are the values of the group.

Wasn't there a row about having the police as part of the parade?

On one level I dont care because Pride is such a men's right thing. But on the other just shows up that virtue signalling isn't enough.