Miriam Cates abuse in HoC by Lloyd Russell-Moyle

[ArabellaScott]

twitter.com/MPIainDS/status/1615658364146487297

I thought MPs were bound by some standards of behaviour?

Yesterday the leader of the SNP at WM called his peers 'rabid gammon', which was shocking, but what I found more disturbing was Llloyd Russell-Moyle's verbal attack on Miriam Cates (clip above).

I actually found his behaviour frightening and alarming, and can't imagine how it must feel to have that venom directed at you by a colleague - let alone the slanderous accusations made.

Is it possible to make a complaint to the Labour Party about his behaviour?

So any man dressed in what people might perceive as women's clothes (and this could change country to country), or in a women's only space, or because they said so, is a woman according to the not overly bright stabby finger mantrum person?

But of course.

Being in women-only space = living as a woman = transwoman.

Agree with this.

Kavanagh works, or worked, directly for Lloyd. She is a caseworker or policy advisor.

Also complained to the Labour Party. Not sure it will do much good but it's nice to feel I have actually done something.

Yep. Just as, if I get into my dog’s crate, I become a dog.

Women have been pointing this out for bloody years.

Who is going to stand on the doorway of a woman's space and demand to see a GRC or birth certificate?

No one. And the suggestion of gatekeeping causes raging because privacy of the male: it's not like any female matters, is it?.

And we're told that a male may be at any stage of transition, and may have made his decision two minutes before walking into the female space. And a male obviously does not have to present in any stereotypical way, because stereotypes only matter when they serve a TQ+ political purpose.

So in essence, if one male can enter under any circumstances at all, all males can, at any time, with any agenda, and by walking into that space have invoked the power and protection intended for the very small number of males with significant medical transition who passed the gate keeping of the original GRC, and expect to be accepted and unchallenged. And can threaten you with legal consequences if you dare to look sideways at them.

Isn't it just great being female in 2023?

Clearly a very dangerous man.

Isn't it just great being female in 2023?

In the spirit of Tony the Tiger 🐅

It's just GRR(Scotland)reat!

Tis feeling more like women must have felt in 1923, 1823, and 1723 at the moment depending on which delight is popping its head up to stick the boot in.

And the way the CC becomes aware is but the Sex Offender telling them they intend to apply. So all we have to do is rely on the Sex Offender to do the right thing.

I suspected that that would be the case Chaz. Do you have a source for that? (I'm not doubting you, it's just I couldn't find one.)

See para 2 under Annexe C for commentary.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-letter-to-msps/

It appears that it is a notification obligation on the SO rather than any automatic link up between law enforcement and the GRC process

Sex offenders. That famously honest group!!!

Thanks very much. I thought it would be somewhere but nice to have it to hand.

What a fucking loophole to deliberately introduce to appease trans activists.

For the benefit of others:

2. At Stage 2 therefore I made a commitment that ahead of commencement of the Bill the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will introduce regulations to amend the Sex Offender Notification Requirements so that those on the register are required to notify the Police with details as to whether they have made an application for a gender recognition certificate.

So the process is that a sex offender applies for a GRC, if they decide to follow the rules they notify the Police, if the Police can be arsed they do a check on the background of the sex offender to do a full review to determine whether their risk is low enough to not prevent grant of the GRC, the Police then interact with the General Registrar who controls the process of granting GRCs, and as a result of this, apparently, GRCs only go to sex offenders who present a low enough risk for them holding a GRC not to be of concern.

What could possibly go wrong?

Relying on the honesty of sex offenders? Nothing could go wrong.

What they could have done is have a blanket ban as originally proposed with an appeal process where, maybe, a sex offender with a record that is so minor and so long ago, that refusal of grant of a GRC to them could be reconsidered.

That is, safeguarding with a remedy to possibly deal with very hard cases which are arguably unfair.

I mean If you think you should just trust a sex offender you have to wonder why they bother having a register of them all? Or why, unless their whole sentence was spent in prison, they are under the probation service until the end of their sentence.

Surely you don't even need to bother jailing any of them anyway as once they've been arrested the first time they will see the error of their ways and never do anything illegal our dodgy ever again.

Actually dont even bother with the arresting, just a quick "as you are mate carry on" to the grown man in school uniform harassing young girls, because that will ensure he behaves himself.

Right?

Considering how very, very difficult it is to prosecute rape at all, never mind get to any kind of conviction, any male in prison as a sex offender has committed extreme, serious and usually repeated attacks on women and/or children.

Some of the rap sheets of people in question should be discussed in this conversation because that is what these nutjobs are so very happy to expose trapped, non consenting women to in their social experiment. Let's look clearly at what they did, why they did it, and how it affected the victims they abused, and then discuss whether they should be sent naked into a shower with this woman who has nowhere to run to and can't identify out of her nightmare.

Yes. Whenever we're discussing assaults, rapes, sex offences, it's astonishing how some people presume that the convictions are in any way equivalent to the actual incidents that have occurred.

I'm always acutely aware of the sort of 'shadow' of crimes that weren't reported, recorded, prosecuted.

As far as I recall it wasn't just any old sex offender who had to report to police, wasn't it just those who'd been subject to an SRO or equivalent? Or have I misremembered?

I would really like to hear the opinion of the police team that spent sometimes years dealing with searches, victims, their families, the lifechanging damage that a sex offense causes, all the work to get a conviction through court and to the point where that offender is behind bars to protect the public. Which is, statistically, largely women and children.

When they then hear that this individual has been moved to a women's prison because they wanted it.

Why fucking bother taking them off the streets?

Let's look clearly at what they did, why they did it, and how it affected the victims they abused, and then discuss whether they should be sent naked into a shower with this woman who has nowhere to run to and can't identify out of her nightmare.

And yet when told exactly this information what do some people do! "Oh but that's only a tiny amount of women, so it doesn't count, it doesn't matter, it's not worth worrying your pretty little head about. Instead worry about some woman's you tube video quality and presentation".

😡

One can only hope that all the sex offenders responsible for confiding in the police about deciding that they're women don't contact one of these Met officers:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/met-police-chief-two-retired-29002972

Could we rely on MPs to declare their expenses correctly?

• Nope

Could we rely on the police to properly vet their officers to weed out actual criminals? - Nope Can we rely on a convicted sex offender to declare when they are seeking to change their identity? - absolutely 100% /it’ll never happen / what could possibly go wrong/ when it does go wrong it’s women’s fault

It's so ridiculously out of order, the only conclusion is it's deliberate.