Jump to content
rb14

Keir Starmer

Recommended Posts

21 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

Her case being ‘you can’t change sex’. I think she’d have done ok.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Supposed threat? A threat is a threat. 


Fucking hell Mal, you’re having a mare and on this.

I'm quoting Rosie Duffield.

Tell her she's having a mare.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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”.

Share this post


Link to post
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".

Share this post


Link to post
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? 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×