Complaints against Baroness Nicholson being organised

[Imnobody4]

An official compliant has been lodged with the @Conservatives Party in regard to @Baroness_Nichol’s online behaviour.

It comes after dozens of complaints were lodged with social media companies regarding her views on #trans.

The Conservative Party has been contacted for comment

twitter.com/ChamberVoice/status/1559229955543912450?t=wOEs_8EZI3NztrVZDlCUUA&s=19

Chamber voice is an on line 'news' outlet.

Apparently Twitter banned the Baroness, but immediately corrected after appeal.
twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1559139062623133697?t=oHnlHAEtE0UgzTDNj4DsPQ&s=19

They really are idiots, what do they think they achieve.

NHS breast enlargement is either for women who have had mastectomy or who have a bilateral absence of breast tissue. Not a B cup.
Ok, point taken, but still going by the logic on here, it's still purely cosmetic, you don't need it, you should learn to be happy with what you've got.

You could try a crowdfund if you are unhappy?

I am no trans right activist, mainly because I have no interest in trans rights,

An odd thing to say for someone seeing your post last year where you said that you were in favour of proposed GRA reform?

As pointed out, quite rightly too, that the Baroness was being discussed as a derail for the Ben Cooper thread, hearache had posted some interesting bits recently that I thought I would pop on here since it is more relevant.

It seems one of the activist arguments for her homophobia are:

she ' wanted gay men to be put in prison for having consensual sex with 20 year olds '.

I will copy the post the essence of what I put on the other thread to show this argument's worth.

Emma Nicholson did vote 'no' to the rejected change in the Act that would have made the age of consent 16 for male homosexual acts. However, this part is most interesting and seems to be never acknowledged.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1994-02-21/debates/e132c2dd-636e-40db-a7d0-25ac060cb788/AgeAtWhichHomosexualActsAreLawful

Here a new vote 20 minutes or so AFTER the other one was voted down. It is a 'compromise' that John Major mentions in articles - to lower the age to 18.

'.—(1) In section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), for "twenty-one" in both places where it occurs there is substituted "eighteen".

(2) In section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (homosexual offences), for "twenty-one" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "eighteen".

(3) This section shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.—[Sir Anthony Durant.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 427, Noes 162.

And Emma Nicholson, MP from Devon West, who had concerns about the abuse of minor males by adults, who had already been a director of Save the Children Foundation from 1974 to 1985, AND started at least one other charity for women and children by 1994, voted AYE.

Emma Nicholson had concerns about children, those males under the age of 18, as she judged in her long experience working with children, and with the knowledge from studies and papers and debate (because, there was such a thing back then) from that time and she voted with her conscience at that time.

She also has not campaigned at all for the reversal of the act passed in 2000. By that time, she was no longer an MP and was not yet a member of the House of Lords.

Maybe people should actually ask her if she would have voted no to lowering the age to 16 by then, and ask her why if she answered that she would not have lowered that age?

She has always been very upfront about her concerns to make sure that no laws negatively impact the rights and safety of women and children. And on this, she has been remarkably reliable.

People can appreciate her efforts without agreeing 100% on everything she has said.

This statement that she ' wanted gay men to be put in prison for having consensual sex with 20 year olds ' became demonstratively false between 10.23 pm and 10.37 pm on Monday 21 February 1994.

Thanks hearache.

Plus Nigel Evans who is still a sitting MP today, who I have been informed is a gay man, voted no in both of those age of consent votes.

Is anyone targeting him for the same reason they are targeting the Baroness?

What can be established with the benefit of hindsight is that the Baroness consistently voted/campaigned against what became the societal norm that we celebrate as right and correct today.

Long may this trend continue.

societal norm

And who decides what the "societal norm" is? Because I don't agree that porn-sick men with fetishes should be the ones to decide. YMMV

Hearache also pointed us to this article from 2020 which is on archive sites if don't have access to The Telegraph.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/lose-freedom-speech-end/

'Explaining her thinking behind that seminal 2013 vote for equal marital rights, she explains: “Marriage enshrines the mother as somebody of huge importance and value. “I’ve worked in many nations where motherhood is devalued, girls are degraded and where women’s rights, in that sense, are fairly negative. My concern, at the time, was that [equal marriage] might devalue motherhood and child protection. “Basically, I’m a backbencher Anglican. I was married myself and I always followed that creed. I’ve nothing against any same-sex marriages at all. I voted the other way. It’s not an issue – I forgot about it immediately after it was done.” '

Just to repeat this section:

"I’ve worked in many nations where motherhood is devalued, girls are degraded and where women’s rights, in that sense, are fairly negative. My concern, at the time, was that [equal marriage] might devalue motherhood and child protection."

The article also points out this:

Not least when she, among the cross-party signatories to an amendment backed by Stonewall, the LGBT lobby group, allowed same-sex partnerships to be of equal value to same-sex marriage, but not identical.

She came at it from a position of protection women and children from the legal use of the word 'marriage'. Not from homophobia, as she actively was engaged in supporting same-sex partnerships having equal value. Why would she do that if she was homophobic?

And concerns around the use of 'marriage' was also shared some people who were LGB too. It was not unanimously supported as per another article linked up thread.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/stonewall-is-split-by-row-about-samesex-marriages-2095468.html

Again, you can appreciate her efforts without agreeing 100% on everything she has said and the blunt language she might use at times. Why is it that we are supposed to agree 100% with 100% of what people say? I have seen this rhetoric being used all too often lately... why?

Those calling her 'vile', 'homophobic' and a whole lot of other slurs, would you prefer an MP to do?

To have concerns about the impact of laws on women and children to simply vote that law through so they can not be called those slurs in the future? Or would you prefer an MP who would have known something about the potential for the impact of a poorly formed law on women and children, due to extensive work with women and children's charities, and to express concerns by voting 'no' until such time as they are confident of no conflict?

I am really quite curious to know what posters think an MP should do in that instance.

What... has child sex abuse become celebrated as 'right and correct' today as a societal norm?

You do realise that she was concerned about this and that other LGB people were as well, they voted down the same bill on the lowering of the age of consent to 16.

Has the Baroness actively supporting the strengthening of same sex partnerships to be equal to marriage, at the same time that other LGB people were expressing concern at the use of the word 'marriage' passed you by?

Has prioritising males above females and children become celebrated as 'right and correct' today?

Apparently making the point that Stonewall are led by a homophobe nowadays is squirrelling, because none of the people criticising the Baroness see a problem with that.

As a lesbian, I see a bloody big problem with it.

Helleofabore · Today 17:59
Re E M’s vote on the age of consent - thank you very much for finding the facts to reveal the truth.

Your welcome scrolling.

I am just tired of posters who post clipped articles only ever highlighting a phrase or a word and declaring it enough to vilify someone without looking into the context. Without providing actual links to support those cherry picked phrases and words.

Considering this is also a person who was born with approximately 92% hearing loss and lip reads, with significant sight impairment, I tend to want to look at the substance of what she is saying rather than her tweets. She dictates her tweets and I am sure nuance is lost there.

For every ‘she did this’ accusation, when you look at her actions regarding recognising same sex partnerships (actively supporting to get a bill brought to parliament) vs marriage and then why, in conjunction with the dissension even within the lesbian and gay community and what she experienced in her work internationally, it is a bad faith interpretation to declare her homophobic based on that action. And rather getting to an extreme bad faith take.

Same with the age of consent accusation. I have seen similar accusations about abortion. But she supported abortion up to a earlier stage not late stage. When she was voting, she has said she was reading some of the current discussions internationally on the stages of the woman and the foetus. She was actively engaged with seeking a wide range of information available at the time.

However, it is too easy to look back with hindsight and declare such decisions hateful with modern framing.

It is very easy to target her, while not applying the very same rigour to others. Peter Tatchell is still out there representing the LGB community ! Nancy Kelley is still the CEO of Stonewall! And neither of them have the depth of history of actively creating foundations directly supporting women and children, working at international level to create and refine laws protecting them. And not one poster calling out her actions has come to confirm that they are 100% comfortable with what Peter and Nancy have said 100% of the time.

Yet, the Baroness is called vile and all sorts of names for not immediately voting for the exact thing demanded by activists demanding significant changes to law, when even people within the LGB community were against those demands and were still debating the way forward.

Has she been blunt and used language that was stark and uncomfortable while still factual? Yes.

Has she mis-spoken ? FFS she had been in politics for decades, yes, of course she has.

Did she vote for lowering the age of consent to 18 rather than 16? At a time when there were still concerns about the potential for minors being abused sexually? Concerns from her gay male colleagues even? Yes.

Did she actively seek to ensure same sex partnerships were treated equally to marriage rather than vote yes for same sex marriage? Yes.

Has she campaigned to change these laws back after they were voted in? No.

Is she 100% pure? No.

Well said.

And not one poster calling out her actions has come to confirm that they are 100% comfortable with what Peter and Nancy have said 100% of the time.

Unless I’ve missed it, not one of those posters has even expressed a view on what Peter and Nancy have said, let alone explained why they think it’s acceptable.

Helleofabore · Today 06:58
However, it is too easy to look back with hindsight and declare such decisions hateful with modern framing.

Yes, and at the same time there is extraordinary smugness from people presuming they are doing nothing wrong, they are on the right side of history, when of course the future too will create new hindsights about these times.

What actually happened seems to have less and less relationship to what people say happened too. Mantras of a few words are passed from one person to another in a circle of diminishing meaning.

People seem collectively like toddlers. It is this way because I say so. Only the present counts. There is no history.

No one can understand anything longer than a few words. Eyes glaze over at sentences.

Even some news programmes now get slack if they can get away with a ready audience catching a quick headline.

Unless I’ve missed it, not one of those posters has even expressed a view on what Peter and Nancy have said, let alone explained why they think it’s acceptable

Yes. I was waiting for someone to defend the intergenerational sex with children writings of Peter Tatchell…

Oh really? A ‘derail’? Amazing how quickly these posts seem to come.

Care to tell us how pointing out that poster seem to be avoiding holding up a prominent spokesperson and their past writings to the same standards as they are insisting on for the Baroness is a derail?

Is there a reason you want discussions about Peter Tatchell’s views to be hived off when the comparison is rather pertinent to the discussion on how the Baroness is being treated?