Draft Conversion Practices Bill - Oral Evidence 29/10/27, 12.15pm

[ImNotAsCooperativeAsYouMightWantAWomanToBe]

This will be worth watching on Thursday. It will be on Parliament TV.

(Image incoming)

CPS on coercive controlling fwiw

https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-intimate-or-family-relationship

9 protected characteristics are axis of oppression not intended as basis for criminal law prosecutions.

Q now about affect on schools

DK concerned any amendments don't result in dragging parents through courts having to try and show that they are good parents.

At least two of the committee left after the TRA witnesses. I think that's appalling.

Sorry about my awful autocorrect typos, they look like I am being very rude. But I don't want to compound the error by quoting them with my apology 😳

Really? That's shocking.

DK no definition of what is abusive in bill.

Is trying to prevent your child accessing street testosterone abusive / coercive behaviour adds HJ

DK Bill is an invitation to go after some people

They are very good. And what they are saying is sensible but scary.

Yes he is very irritating

Offense is wide open for private prosecution. It will be abused. There will be malicious prosecutions.

Who?

Yes. Scariest of all is that their clear, sensible, logical and evidenced concerns will be brushed aside and dismissed by zealous activists who are in bad faith, utterly blinded by tribal allegiances, and incapable of unbiased and rational thought.

There's another annoying smirking chap behind Maya. GC audience managing to control their expressions.

I'd be very tempted to tell the panel: "And don't for a minute think that this couldn't happen to you, as well, if you are a parent."

(People in power always feel protected from the effects their actions can have.)

I suspect it wouldn't be gratefully received, so it's a good thing they're not asking me the questions!

Shouldn't be allowed, but I suppose they've agreed dictated a convenient quorum. (their terms of reference and committee constitution should have stipulated when they are deemed quorate)

ed. moreinfo

I think (would need to rewatch) it was the Lib Dem MP and one of the Lords.

Good to hear such clear evidence based contributions from DK, HJ & DK. Whether they'll be listened to by the other side is a different matter.

So. Some sensible and honest questions and answers, some facetious pish from Olivia, some good answers from the second panel.

Overall though it gives me a queasy feeling. It's bullshit on steroids, appalling attempt to hustle terrible law onto the books from addled activists. It would likely end up causing vast amounts of harm and backfire on them badly as well as everyone else.

But - we have the GRA and the EA.

Is the govt up to recognising terrible law? And capable of saying no to the unions, activists, and backbenchers?

That was good and our team were brilliant, of course. It's going to be helpful in completing the call for evidence. I've read all of their position statements etc but hearing the words out loud has cleared up a few things for me.

I definitely had the feeling that the other side were controlled by Ilios T.

I'm feeling a bit more optimistic about the committee too, as I'd feared they would all be TRAs and be sniffy about our issues but I think they listened with interest and took it all on board. I hope so, anyway.

Andy will ignore it if it suits his purposes. Andy will also allow it to happen if it suits his purposes, or stop it from happening if...well, you get the picture.

Political expediency will overrule common and legal sense.

And we all get to go along for the ride, whether we want to or not.

I am a glass half-empty kind of person today. 😒

An human right academic lawyer who likes to study theories (according to his own bio) is no match for Dennis Kavanagh who, as a criminal barrister, is well practiced at getting his hands dirty in the law.

A sociologist and polysci grad is no match for a doctor of maths and a forensic journalist.

A pr type isn’t good enough to go toe to toe with a good public broadcast journalist.

I was very pleased we went second so properly rebuttals could be included.

I thought the committee, where sympathetic to our side, were still trying to meet in the middle and just see if there was a tweak or a fix which would make the proposals ok for everyone, rather than really taking on board the degree to which they are misconceived and deceptive.

I don't think the second panel could have done any better. They were excellent.

Yes I got that feeling from some of them but Dennis Kavanagh was very much on the ball there. I sincerely hope that he has been listened to