Will India Willoughby need to delete this post?

[tabbycatstripy]

“Baroness Nicholson is an evil woman. Made a flurry of FOI’s to the NHS looking for cases where trans had attacked - or been complained about - by other women. Found none. So she simply made one up. Unforgivable. Reported by a blood-thirsty press.”

That’s a serious allegation.

[quote Signalbox]JP is at it too...

twitter.com/joss_prior/status/1512487944736628739[/quote]
Wow! That response to the woman whose message is included! What humanity!

@TheCurrywurstPrion

So is IW saying the victim doesn't exist? Or that the victim is lying?

Saying that the victim doesn’t exist and that the Baroness is lying.

So the hospital never got a complaint of rape from a victim?

And now are admitting there was a transwomen on the ward?

If the victim doesn't exist did the hospital just randomly release a statement saying 'we had a transwoman on female ward' for no reason at all? Just letting people know?

It doesn't even make sense. If the Baroness is inventing the victim, did she guess the victim happened to be on a female ward and that a transwoman was there?

How do you just make up a victim?

Did JP get a mate to write those DMs? What does that prove?

I think at least two things may have been conflated here. One was an appeal for the Baroness’s help from a distressed woman who thought someone in her ward was male but turned out to be mistaken. The other is a rape that now, as I understand it, has CCTV evidence of some sort.

We have no reason to think that’s a real message exchange.

But the whole ‘women lie about rape’ trope isn’t doing them any favours.

Why is JP talking about the person who dm'd her if she believes that wasnt the victim.

'Someone who has no involvement says it wasn't a transwoman so the Baroness is a liar?'

My hurts trying to follow IW and JP

Am I supposed to believe that JP received DM's from someone JP thinks it's probably a GC troll on the 22nd March and has waiting until today to go public?

Yeah right.

I suspect IW and JP have been in the kitchen together.

@tabbycatstripy

We have no reason to think that’s a real message exchange.

But the whole ‘women lie about rape’ trope isn’t doing them any favours.

Yeah but if it isn't real that message still packs an incredible emotional punch And JP just shrugs and says "well, they wouldn't give me their real name and address so fuck 'em"

And yet there’s so much confusion about why women need female-only spaces. Can you blame them, when explaining that someone has raped you gets this response?

The claims that the transgender journey is supposed to lead to a happy and fulfilled life, is quite at odds with the angry individuals who spend a lot of time obsessively focused on people that they claim to hate.

@WhiteFire

The claims that the transgender journey is supposed to lead to a happy and fulfilled life, is quite at odds with the angry individuals who spend a lot of time obsessively focused on people that they claim to hate.

but the happiness mostly consists of forcing everyone else to drink the KoolAid, otherwise, literal violence, and that.

I suspect India is wanting the hospital identified and has no respect for privacy. India thinks that by putting (Tweeting) pressure on, India will get what India wants.

I suspect India is wanting the hospital identified

Seems almost as if both JP and IW want the victim identified.

What’s that phrase Scientologists use again? Oh yeah. Fair game.

The post is libellous because it says that Baroness Norman is evil and because it says she lied about the hospital rape.

That doesn't mean, however, that the hospital rape story is true. The hospital hasn't been named. None of the newspapers who reported the story have talked to the hospital or the police or the victim.

It seems likely that a woman claiming to be the victim of a rape in hospital contacted Baroness Norman with her story. What we don't know is whether Baroness Norman did any checking, or whether she simply repeated it in the House of Lords. The newspapers who reported it all based their stories on her House of Lords speech.

It's perfectly possible that the rape happened, and also possible that it didn't, and the story was made up by a troll. What seems very unlikely is that Baroness Norman would have made it up.

Ah, but it is an ongoing investigation, so, if true, there would be no publicly available information, after a year, with all the other crap going on around it.

Or are we to believe that every word of it is a lie and the Baronesss was suckered, didn't do any due diligence?

Mmmm!

WI Spa also 'didn't happen', until there was a published police report. And then mysterious silence from all the 'it didn't happen crowd'.

Am I supposed to believe that JP received DM's from someone JP thinks it's probably a GC troll on the 22nd March and has waiting until today to go public?

JP was talking about this on 19th March, as seen on this thread.

What we don't know is whether Baroness Norman did any checking

Baroness Nicholson said:

It is on record—I know where the case happened, who the police are and where the hospital is. I know everything about it because she gave me the full case to make sure I knew that what she was saying was true.

Ach! You beat me to it @NecessaryScene. I knew there had been a comment made about the veracity of the story.

WI Spa also 'didn't happen', until there was a published police report. And then mysterious silence from all the 'it didn't happen crowd'.

For the most heinous cases, I think they figure that throwing around unsubstantiated accusations of lies to create a stink is possibly the least worst option for them.

Then at least some people not paying full attention will have a vague memory of the thing being "debunked".

Those paying full attention already think it's appalling, and the TRAs denial is appalling, so some extra false accusations on top don't really drag the TRAs down much further in their estimation.

I think there have been two incidents which are getting mixed up - one where the hospital said "no women in ward so no rape", but wasn't there a thread here last month of a woman believing there was a man on her ward and being discharged early? I think she later posted to say she was mistaken?

Hmm, interesting Necessary, so in that case the Baroness can either ignore, as IW's a nobody, or get her lawyers to send a nice letter to IW. I think the tweet oversteps the mark and can be taken as impugning Baroness's character, would be interesting to see what she does. I, in her place, would ignore, as IW is unhinged.

wasn't there a thread here last month of a woman believing there was a man on her ward and being discharged early? I think she later posted to say she was mistaken?

Yes, but she never actually had any reason to believe she was mistaken, apart from the hospital's denial.

Having heard of these new incidents of lying hospitals, she's gone back to her original story.

Some discussion in the last 5-6 pages of the thread I linked above.

Quote from KittenKong's post there

Gilly was adamant at the time that there was a male bodied person in her (woman’s ward).

When she raised her concern with staff she was told she was wrong and was swiftly discharged (even though she was still in pain and scared).

She later recanted (saying she was 100% wrong - so I can only assume the hospital had reaffirmed that this was NOT the case) and went off twitter.

She is now back saying that no, she is still convinced that her initial suspicions were right.

Sounds like the hospital convinced her that she was wrong - but maybe this case showed her that they lie and lie again, and her gut was correct.

India is unhinged. Tweeted the other week something about if anyone questioned them using a toilet or changing room theyd strip off and piss in front of everyone. Ew. As if a woman would do that. Reckon it's because people are peaking in droves and India know in their own heart that humans cant change sex.

Individuals like India and Monty who have had a lot of control over the narratives until now are losing it as they repeatedly come up against reality, and their arguments break down under the slightest criticism.

Bring it on, I say.

Thank you for the clarification Scene, that thread does disentangle the two (or more) cases somewhat.