Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Keir Starmer


rb14
 Share

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That's not true. She chose not to go, because she didn't fancy arguing her case with LGBT+ people.

Screenshot_2021-09-27-07-32-58-56_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg

Screenshot_2021-09-27-07-33-17-30_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg

But you do accept she has been threatened with violence just for having a different opinion ? That’s the issue here, women being threatened by violent men for daring to disagree on issues about their own gender. This is in the Labour Party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

She wouldn’t be able to argue her case though because the baying mob won’t allow her to say anything.
 

Also, if she feels threatened and fearful of her safety as a women, then she’s fully entitled to not go out of that fear. That’s a security issue. Not because she didn’t fancy arguing her case.

 

If Starmer had backed her then I would hazard a guess she would be going. 
 

 

If she was"fearful for her safety" wouldn't she have said that, instead of the opposite? 

 

There's a big difference between fearing violence and wanting to avoid confrontation.

 

According to what she told the Times, it's not a security issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

If she was"fearful for her safety" wouldn't she have said that, instead of the opposite? 

 

There's a big difference between fearing violence and wanting to avoid confrontation.

 

According to what she told the Times, it's not a security issue.

I think you’re avoiding the problem. She’s been threatened by men for daring to have a different opinion. Whether or not they would have actually assaulted her is a moot point to my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

But you do accept she has been threatened with violence just for having a different opinion ? That’s the issue here, women being threatened by violent men for daring to disagree on issues about their own gender. This is in the Labour Party. 

Threatened by Labour Party members? 

I've not been following the issue closely, but if she's been threatened with violence by party members, then they need bouncing from the party and she needs protection at Conference. If not, then I stand by what she told the Times.

 

(I wouldn't be in the least surprised if she's had threats on Twitter, just as other women receive threats for supporting trans rights.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain Willard said:

I think you’re avoiding the problem. She’s been threatened by men for daring to have a different opinion. Whether or not they would have actually assaulted her is a moot point to my mind.

I think you're overstating the supposed threat to her safety much more than she herself is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

If she was"fearful for her safety" wouldn't she have said that, instead of the opposite? 

 

There's a big difference between fearing violence and wanting to avoid confrontation.

 

According to what she told the Times, it's not a security issue.

Considering you haven’t followed this closely, you seem 100% sure she’s shit out of attending.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Considering you haven’t followed this closely, you seem 100% sure she’s shit out of attending.

I'm quoting Rosie Duffield. She seemed pretty sure at the time she decided not to go that there would be no threat of violence against her at Conference.

 

I just want to stick to the facts before the alternative version becomes accepted as truth; I've seen too much of that sort of shit in the last few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I'm quoting Rosie Duffield. She seemed pretty sure at the time she decided not to go that there would be no threat of violence against her at Conference.

 

I just want to stick to the facts before the alternative version becomes accepted as truth; I've seen too much of that sort of shit in the last few years.

She said this earlier last week 

 

 

B2B2EF85-A6AB-4363-97AB-9EC3132BFC43.jpegShe’s fearful of parts of her own party. That’s a fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

She said this earlier last week 

 

 


She’s fearful of parts of her own party. That’s a fact. And that’s all there is to it. 
 

 

 

3A77AEEB-7A59-4E7F-8AE4-E2FCFEAE77F8.jpeg

That doesn't say she fears violence from her own party.

The quote I posted says she doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That doesn't say she fears violence from her own party.

The quote I posted says she doesn't.

 

But she said she “mainly took the decision [not to attend conference] not because I really thought I was going to be attacked, but because I did not want to be the centre of attention”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

I’ve edited as I cropped the wrong bit. 

OK. Now it's the same bit that I quoted, where she says she doesn't think people would attack her.

 

The point is that it's a massive overstatement (at best) to say she "can't attend Conference on security grounds".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

OK. Now it's the same bit that I quoted, where she says she doesn't think people would attack her.

 

The point is that it's a massive overstatement (at best) to say she "can't attend Conference on security grounds".

C51FB1E3-269B-4250-A2F9-394DB1D975E8.jpeg

 

She points out she is getting more nervous with the more abuse she receives. 
 

And it’s not a security issue?

 

 

If somebody is fearful, then it’s an issue. You seem to be downplaying the seriousness of this.
 

Granted the headlines are slightly misleading but a woman does not feel safe in going to a conference as part of her own job, because she doesn’t want to be centre of attention (which wouldn’t be of her own doing, it would the baying lemons) How is that acceptable? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

C51FB1E3-269B-4250-A2F9-394DB1D975E8.jpeg

 

She points out she is getting more nervous with the more abuse she receives. 
 

And it’s not a security issue?

 

 

If somebody is fearful, then it’s an issue. You seem to be downplaying the seriousness of this.
 

Granted the headlines are slightly misleading but a woman does not feel safe in going to a conference as part of her own job, because she doesn’t want to be centre of attention (which wouldn’t be of her own doing, it would the baying lemons) How is that acceptable? 
 

 

I think this is real “angels dancing on the head of a pin” obscurantism. She’s been threatened with violence on social media numerous times for daring to dissent from the orthodoxy on trans issues. Starmer had the chance to condone it and he threw her to the baying mob instead by saying she “shouldn’t have said it”. This is indisputable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

I think this is real “angels dancing on the head of a pin” obscurantism. She’s been threatened with violence on social media numerous times for daring to dissent from the orthodoxy on trans issues. Starmer had the chance to condone it and he threw her to the baying mob instead by saying she “shouldn’t have said it”. This is indisputable.  

I don’t believe it is.


Jo Cox was murdered for having a difference of opinion, and also received online threats. 
 

But Duffield is the one making a massive overstatement about her own feelings, on her safety within her own party.

 

There was again a young woman murdered 5 minutes from her house recently. 150 (iirc) women murdered by men alone so far this year. How Duffield is overstating it is what I’d like to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

C51FB1E3-269B-4250-A2F9-394DB1D975E8.jpeg

 

 You seem to be downplaying the seriousness of this.

I'm trying to get a sense of perspective.

Willard said she couldn't go on security grounds; Duffield said she chose not to go to avoid LGBT+ Labour activists "having a go". (I'm not downplaying that; she presumably and understandably foresaw relentless and intense confrontations, getting in the way of any worthwhile Conference business she wanted to do.) I believe Duffield's version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

I don’t believe it is.


Jo Cox was murdered for having a difference of opinion, and also received online threats. 
 

But Duffield is the one making a massive overstatement about her own feelings, on her safety within her own party.

 

There was again a young woman murdered 5 minutes from her house recently. 150 (iirc) women murdered by men alone so far this year. How Duffield is overstating it is what I’d like to know. 

Labour party members are going to murder Duffield?

No wonder she won't turn up to the conference then. Murderous anti-Semites!

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...