Carly-May Kavanagh

[NitroNine]

There are rumours circulating on Twitter that Carly-May Kavanagh (the one who screams at babies: Daily Mail) has, despite her “apology” been suspended from the Labour Party. Presumably such a suspension would have an impact on her job as Lloyd Russell-Moyle‘s head of policy?

Apparently if she is suspended it [probably] won’t be made public. Given the reason for her [potential] suspension; if Labour actually do take action, you’d think they’d want to reassure people that they expect their members to uphold certain standards. I mean, “not screaming abuse at infants” is less upholding a standard than it is failing to trip over pebbles of basic decency…

Clearly one cannot put too much weight into Random Person Says Unevidenced Thing. However, it would be a foolish rumour to start without cause, so I thought it was worth starting a thread here to see if there are developments to follow.

Should Kavanagh face consequences for her behaviour it will be a watershed moment: Labour acknowledging women have rights all their own, including the rights to assemble & to speak on issues of concern to them, such as their need for single sex provisions.

This post?

It is obvious I am saying that left wing feminists don't want anything to do with PP because she PARTNERS with the far right, not because she is far right herself.

Every other post gives context to that.

I suspect any misinterpretation is deliberate.

"Care to expand on why you found my posts so shocking and disingenuous? Which posts in particular shocked you the most? "

It's been pointed out to you several times by more than one poster & you are still feigning innocence?

Please do explain why you posted in such a way to give the impression Tommy Robinson was at the SFW meeting, and didn't bother to clarify what you posted to avoid anyone else making the same mistake and going further in spreading that lie elsewhere?

Your style & language used has all the hallmarks of TRA who set out to smear & discredit without any evidence of the smears ever being produced. Because it's never about actual issues a person might speak on or campaign about, but discrediting the messenger to the point they're dismissed & their point never being addressed.

It's disingenuous to pretend you haven't a clue what's meant when it's stated clearly you are disingenuous in what you post/your style of posting, when you choose not to respond to what's been spelled out already.

I have no idea what your agenda is Sapphos but whatever it is, it's been noticed and pointed out how what you say is never backed up, or what you choose to rely on is a house of cards built on sand. By all means, carry on as you are, but pointing out the flaws in what you say, the flimsy/non-existent evidence of what you assert by posters isn't bullying. It's MN doing what MN has always done best, and clearing up lies, misinformation & misdirection when it's posted here - because we all know the lurkers are watching all this too.

I guess the problem is that Sapphos thinks that "partnership" is transitive.

So if Posie Parker "partners" with the "far right" and these "feminists" "partner" with Posie Parker, then the "feminists" are "partnering" with the "far right", transitively. That's must be how Sapphos is justifying the screenshotted statement.

Most of us normal people do not think that "partnership" is transitive - you actually have to be "partnering" with the person in question, not just someone who is partnering them, so at 2 steps (or more) removed.

So we naturally read that post about "feminists" "partnering" with the "far right" as meaning directly, which means it must be implying that Posie Parker is "far right". But Sapphos is just thinking of second-hand contamination. Not a standard meaning of "partnership".

If you're in a world where "partnership" is transitive, and hence contagious, then sure, you have to cut off all contact with anyone once they're contaminated to stop it spreading.

But you were there so you are by default partnering with the far right.

Happy to make a correction.

If someone read my post that said GC women appeared on the same website as Tommy Robinson I want to make it clear that this was due to the SFW event being live streamed by Tommy Robinson supporters.

Tommy Robinson was not at the SFW event himself, just his fan club.

But you were there so you are by default partnering with the far right.

It's true that some of the criticisms of PP in relation to her being prepared to collaborate with "fascists" go back a number of years. Most people must be aware of her sullied character by now. It is quite strange that people who believe in guilt by association would risk attending such an event.

There is a difference between attending an event and partnering / collaborating with the event organiser.

The 2 far right men who were there have no apparent links to Posie Parker. But their group definitely does have a demonstrable link to a very prominent TRA. I wish people weren't so desperate to prove their virtue they'd chase after every disruptive squirrel, especially when the squirrel seems to be nothing but smear and projection.

bullying

Serious question Sappho?

What is the bar for bullying? Is having a page of sins listed for a woman who is also working to maintain single sex spaces bullying to you? Because to me, that is even more than bullying, that is vilifying. Are you still comfortable with that page?

They didn't. That's long been disproved.

So it's acceptable to support an event where you believe the event organiser has collaborated with fascists? I've lost track of the rules.

I stand by my assertion that my interpretation is the obvious one, and yours is only obvious to you because you know what was in your head when you posted the words.

I don;t think she partners with the far right. She speaks to people firmly on the right. She might even occasionally speak to people on the far right, but I am not sure that she partners with them.

I still think you might be defaming her.

I would still prefer you to actually say "I, Sapphos, do not believe that Posie is on the far right and I apologise to Posie for the fact that my words came across like I was saying that."

I would prefer Posie Parker to apologise for her condemnation of donor conception but I won't hold my breath.

That makes sense. ish. ish added due to the nature of the underlying subject, not your lack of clarity.

I would prefer Posie Parker to apologise for her condemnation of donor conception

Im not sure why you'd require an apology for this, it's a legitimate view based on the impact and rights of the donor herself and Parker is not the only person, left or right, to hold it.

She doesn't need to apologise for having a different view to you on this issue. That's very different to defaming her (which, in fairness, I don't know if you've done and I'm not accusing you of, I'm just pointing out this is not like for like).

The word fascist here has completely lost its meaning.
You call anything you don't like fascist, and hope that people will believe the slur.

Sorry?

You want Kellie Jay Keen to apologise for your own and your mate's misinterpretation?

Do you actually have any evidence at all to support your claim that only about 1-2% of lesbians in Brighton use 'donor eggs'? Because that doesn't seem to actually reflect the figures across the UK.

So, you are willing to continue to condemn a woman based on that it doesn't apply to your group?

Can you imagine if we all took that approach Sappho?

Can you start to at least admit that your mate has crossed into vilification territory and it would be hugely hypocritical to talk about 'bullying' on this thread while ignoring the actions of your mate?

Even though no one but you think it was about men wanking into cups and people showing you the evidence of highly exploitative egg donation industry?

Where is the evidence that KJK 'partners with the far right'?

Interestingly, I have never really spend much time thinking about the issues surrounding donor conception, nor do I recall ever hearing PP's thoughts on the subject. But based on your words on this thread I am very much open to the idea that we should really go back to basics on all forms of donor conception, and indeed every single building block that it is founded on.

But that is for another thread, this thread is about a very unpleasnt individual who is happy to shout in the faces of an ordinary man and his baby, whilst ignoring the actual fascists who were allegedly there, and ignore the quasi-fascist beaviours and tactics from half the people on her side of the #nodebate.

I am also going to say that I absolutely do not support donor conception if an egg donor is coerced in any way, and to any degree, to donating an egg. An action which could cause death or stroke or any number of harmful and life limiting and possibly shorting effects.

Should I too apologise to you?

I don't support any assisted conception. It's a view I came to when the first "test tube baby" Louise Brown was being held up as a triumph of medical science.

Lesbians have struggled (and still struggle) to get equality in fertility treatment and to be recognised as equal to straight parents.

For someone like PP with a big platform to blithely say she is totally in opposition to donor conception and IVF is very damaging to lesbians.

It's clear that lots of straight PP supporters don't care, but the local feminist groups do.

No need to apologise but I'd prefer it if you didn't say it in front of my donor conceived children.

I'd still like the lack of logical consistency in the following position to be acknowledged:

1. It's OK to be against surrogacy even though it's (supposedly) gay men's only way of having children.

1. It's beyond the pale to be against IVF because it's (supposedly) lesbians only way of having children.

But given it was a massive derail anyway, maybe I should accept remaining in ignorance.