Miriam Cates Question to Pm

[poshme]

Brilliant question to PM on mermaids- listing some of the recent issues and asking whether police should be investigating.

EB getting pedantic about 'allegations' against Mermaids, but taking abuse being the reason for the chatline being closed as gospel. Annoying.

Twitter is not happy about MC being interviewed.

Oh, apparently the helpline closed for one day to give workers a respite from the high volumes of calls and the abuse. Is the narrative shifting?

Thank you Miriam.

If there is abuse happening on the helplines, why provide only respite? Are you then knowingly putting people into an unsafe work situation and failing in your H&S duties? I don't understand the reasoning.

Plus as has been observed on here, helplines sadly do get abusive calls. So those manning the phones have to be trained in how to deal with that.

Saying they've given a day of respite does not seem to deal with the core issues in any way.

Why would they safeguard their volunteers? They don't safe guard the children.

Miriam is very good. I suspect Liz Truss is relieved to have a chance/excuse to get on with sorting this out.

I also think that Mermaids will go down, and Stonewall will strengthen.

Saying they've given a day of respite does not seem to deal with the core issues in any way.

Indeed, I wonder if they could provide a support dog and a parent for each session?

If you are reading this thank you again Miriam for speaking up both yesterday & today on Woman’s Hour.
Emma Burnet on the other hand is a disappointment...

Emma Burnet on the other hand is a disappointment...

To be fair to Emma she has to give voice to the other side, I think she handled it well. She also finished the programme on a text message which thanked Miriam for speaking out.

I think Emma Barnett walks a very fine line, and does it with great skill.

She's having these conversations, which no one else on WH has done. She challenges her GC guests because that enables them to make their points and refute the arguments against them in a way they couldn't if EB wasn't providing that counter narrative.

Miriam Cates understands that it's not just a problem with a paedophile apologist and mermaids lack of safeguarding, it's a problem with the ideology in general.

Emma was focusing on one or two details and whether or not they are proven, or still at the allegation stage. Which is fine. But it's not really addressing the problem.

Mermaid 's statement needed unpicking. And I would love to have heard Miriam say look, why don't you get me on here with anyone from mermaids, or indeed anyone who supports the ideology, and we can unpick it all.

She could ask them about their Barbie/GI Joe spectrum, about the genderbread person, all of it.

Or Emma could broadcast to everybody who listens, that she couldn't find a single, solitary person willing to discuss it with Miriam Cates.

Supporters of gender ideology have got away, so far, with never being asked direct questions. Just sending out meaningless statements, usually hyperbolic.

I really hope we are now getting to the point where they are going to be asked to account for what's happening. And if they don't, then people will understand why they don't.

Anyone else having issues with MN? As I was watching this I couldn’t get to it and now this thread isn’t coming up on my notifications and I’m apparently watching almost every thread on Mumsnet?! Wtf

Agree Emma has to tread a fine line. I thought the earlier discussion in WH with Juliet Stevenson was enlightening. Especially about social media and people being afraid to speak out

So pleased to hear Emma Barnett back again. I don't listen every day but when I have I've missed her and the whole programme seems flabby and 'be kind'.

She's hard on GC people because it gives them an opportunity to come back firmly with evidence and talk sense.

Thank you, Miriam Cates, you're doing great work. If only it were possible for Labour women to speak out in this way: I know a couple of female Labour MPs who'd love to be saying these things.

The trans activist response to Miriam Cates is largely that she is a "supporter of conversion therapy", seemingly based on this:

twitter.com/kercoboots/status/1580520014578262016

Hmmm. The name of the source sounds like a local newspaper but in fact is a paid for Substack. There's a screen shot of what must be a part of the article. So without paying for access to the Substack, it's not possible to get details from the source cited.

I listened to this with great interest. I work in the area that Miriam Cates represents and will sending her an email to thank her for speaking out.

thesacredpodcast.podigee.io/103-miriamcates

I found this a fascinating interview with Miriam Cates from last year where she talks about her Christian faith and values, science, family and being a mother.

She appears to be almost an accidental rather than an ideological conservative in that, around the 9 minute mark, she speaks of how, having been a floating voter, one of the 2 main drivers to becoming a Conservative party member (a relatively short time before becoming an MP in 2019) was that there is a 'live and healthy debate' around gender and identity politics in the Conservative Party whereas there is no space for that on the left.

She knows her stuff having studied genetics at Cambridge and has a strong understanding of Safeguarding from a teaching career but crucially is allowed to speak freely on the topic of sex and gender by her party.

Is there any chance that if we had a Labour government in charge at the moment - and knowing the gravity of the safeguarding failures at Mermaids - that any Labour MP would have been able to ask this precise question yesterday? And if the answer is no, then shame on them...

"For such a time as this", Miriam.

email sent to Alex Sobel to ask what his current position is… not expecting an answer though.

ResisterRex · Today 13:36

^nauticant · Today 13:29
The trans activist response to Miriam Cates is largely that she is a "supporter of conversion therapy", seemingly based on this:

twitter.com/kercoboots/status/1580520014578262016^

Hmmm. The name of the source sounds like a local newspaper but in fact is a paid for Substack. There's a screen shot of what must be a part of the article. So without paying for access to the Substack, it's not possible to get details from the source cited

I looked at that Twitter. Someone had posted a screen shot of the part you couldn’t see without paying.

A gay man had complained about a church exorcism he had been subject to in 2014 for being gay.The church apparently denied anything had happened to him other that people praying for him.

M C was a member of that church congregation. It does not say from when.

M C was on the board of that church (? I am not sure of the right word) 2016-2018.
So not at the time of the exorcism.

Here us a screen shot of what I mentioned before.

Not meaning to be provocative @pattihews. But anyone who has taken a role of MP needs to stand up for their own principles. If you know Labour mps who would "love to speak" then they'd better be getting on with it.

Not meaning to be provocative @pattihews. But anyone who has taken a role of MP needs to stand up for their own principles. If you know Labour mps who would "love to speak" then they'd better be getting on with it.

I don't think that was a provocative thing to say. Naive perhaps.

I live in MC's constituency so can shed a bit of light (at least, from my perspective) about some things.

Firstly, MC is the ONLY Tory MP in Sheffield. In fact, it was rather a surprise that she was voted in to this constituency, which seems to have been a solid red seat for quite some time. Sheffield is known for being a Labour dominant town, and now also has a lot of Green MPs.

This area of the city is geographically and socially distant from the more "centralised" constituencies in which we see the likes of EI campaigning for seats... To the point when one might wonder whether the distance (in addition to being represented by a Tory MP) means this area is dropped from prominence in local decision making and media coverage... But I digress.

Since being voted in (and possibly prior to this, I wasn't paying attention then), there seem to have been several attempts to smear or deride MC, in local newspapers and forums. The church/conversion therapy connection being only one of them (I won't repeat the others here). Those smears have proven tenuous at best, or when revealed to be untrue, a shrugging of the shoulders and a sense of "oh, but she's a Tory anyway".

From a local point of view, MC has been a blessing to the community (at least in my opinion). She actively assists and campaigns in issues of importance in this constituency. Many good things have happened (and continue to happen) to benefit this area of town as a result of her involvement.

I say these things as a previously staunch Labour supporter, now politically homeless (partly due to GC issues and mostly due to a lack of local involvement or constituency care from certain "prominent" MPs in other areas of Sheffield I have lived). I cannot call myself a Tory, nor do I agree with MC on many of the ways she has voted. I did not vote for her, but given the chance to do so next time, I most certainly will, because she has proven herself to have an excellent track record on local issues of importance to me. But her safeguarding and GC activities are an excellent bonus!

Here's another local article about the church exorcism, not behind a paywall: Man tells of 'absurd' gay exorcism experience at Sheffield church

From what I'm able to divulge, MC has denied any involvement in the incident, and since there are no receipts claiming otherwise, it appears to be an example of those "tenuous at best" connections I mentioned in my last post.

Agreed. EB gave MC the chance to get her points across while providing some challenge to maintain impartiality.