The Green Party has some serious questions to answer

[crossthebreeze]

Who gets to draw that line, though? For instance, Mr and Mrs Jones enjoy role play. Mr J (or mrs, or both, or likes being the one doing it) likes being tied up and whipped/fucked with a strap-on/whatever. Maybe they sometimes invite friends to join in. What side of the line is that on for Mr Jones the schoolteacher? At what point does it cross the line of 'none of your business', and who decides?

If our hypothetical Mr Jones likes being tied up and slapped about, that doesn't mean he has any inclination to do that to his students, does it? If he were, let us say, to try to get one of his students to join in, that would be as out of order as any other sexual advance towards a student. Are people into BDSM more likely than people who are not into BDSM to lack that particular bit to their moral code?

Except none of that has anything to do with getting off on symbols of being an infant or child or teenager any more than vanilla sex, whereas getting off on school uniforms or nappies does.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The extent of knowledge isn't an issue; AC and DC were engaged in framing GP policy on issues that have an absolutely clear overlap with safeguarding and the rights of women and children. In that role they aggressively pursued a campaign to completely silence any dissenting voices, not just through things like terfblocker etc but by smearing anyone who dared to question any part of their agenda as a 'bigot' or a 'transphobe', ie by intimidation.

In itself this behaviour is abusive.

In itself this, in a safeguarding context, this should be flagged as a risk behaviour.

It is also typical behaviour of a predatory sexual criminal - and in this case it turned out to be exactly that.

For AC to now flounce off accusing everyone else of 'transphobia' is also typical.

No regret, no reflection, no attempt to understand, just accuse, accuse, accuse. "I haven't done anything wrong, it's everyone else" - this is what abusers say.

I've been twitter-spatted as "a terf" recently, for making the uncontroversial remark that hormone blockers and surgery can't change your genetic heritage. I also received threats by DM (from others) to "fuck me up". They stopped when I told them that as I'd gone toe to toe with fascists, the idea of freshers studying politics "fucking me up" was deeply amusing, and to bring it on. It's attempted bullying, pure and simple. Didn't even bother to report them (and told them so "because you're not deserving of my attention" ).

 

[ViolentPanda]

Lucas has been 'terfblocked' because she has agreed to talk to the Woman's Place people next week.

This horrible affair might possibly mark a bit of a watershed moment in the terf wars. It is possibly the clearest demonstration of how the debate has to change, from the trans activists' side. They cannot just scream 'bigot' at anyone who does not agree with them that trans women are women, while shoving them (and anyone who talks to them) on 'ignore'. They need to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at issues of sex and gender identity from theirs, that there are other perfectly valid definitions and points of view. They need to find a way to start respecting certain positions that they currently label 'terf'.

Sadly, I think you're wrong, and that any watershed moment will be a swing toward more open violence by some trans activists, egged on by those who keep to the rear for fear of compromising their careers or future careers.

Why do I think this? Precisely BECAUSE screaming "bigot" no longer works as effectively in causing their "enemies" to pull back.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That'd be brilliant, esp in Suburban.

Anyone Got A Recipe For Lemon Posset That Actually Works?



GO FUCK YOURSELF, PAEDO!

FEB thread:

Anyone know a decent gastric ulcer treatment?

Fuck off, you Audi-driving cunt!!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

And how would you propose preventing the greater proportion of sexual abuse which happens at the hands of people the victim knows or is related to? Yeh, prevent sexual abuse: but the volume of abuse you're talking about from trans people is a tiny percentage of that perpetrated by the cis.

Quite, and until we address the "greater proportion", then addressing the "tiny percentage" on a priority basis entirely misses the point (which is that a majority of abusers were, in turn, abused and unable to escape it, or its consequences).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Except none of that has anything to do with getting off on symbols of being an infant or child or teenager any more than vanilla sex, whereas getting off on school uniforms or nappies does.

So if he or Mrs Jones dressed up in a school uniform to do it, that would cross a line? Thing is, Mr J is a hypothetical sixth-form teacher whose students will be mostly post-pubescent and have various physical characteristics that might fall into Mr Jones's (and many other people's) set of 'things that turn me on'. What would make the uniform in and of itself a different and dangerous thing that he would be less likely to be able/willing not to act on?

 

[Wilf]

So if he or Mrs Jones dressed up in a school uniform to do it, that would cross a line? Thing is, Mr J is a hypothetical sixth-form teacher whose students will be mostly post-pubescent and have various physical characteristics that might fall into Mr Jones's (and many other people's) set of 'things that turn me on'. What would make the uniform in and of itself a different and dangerous thing that he would be less likely to be able/willing not to act on?

I think there are a number of different levels in play, some of which overlap, some don't:

1. Legal safeguarding, risk assessment. Operates by and large within a clear framework.
2. Specific areas of lifestyle that might be relevant to particular positions - can doggers be teachers? Can bare knuckle/unlicensed boxers? [yes and yes, fwiw, but head teachers may well intervene to boot staff out on such grounds.]
3. Moral panics from the press and maybe parents too that will change over time and will move on to different issues as society changes

We've touched on 2. in this thread: would you want someone with a baby fetish running a crèche? [my honest answer, it rings alarm bells in that it doesn't feel 'right', but actually I need to educate myself about it]. For the rest of it there are all kinds of issues in play, but surely the central criterial should be whether the person poses a real threat to children. Beyond that we should support workers who end up being victimised for their lifestyle or identity - trade unionism 101. There will of course be grey areas...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think there are a number of different levels in play, some of which overlap, some don't:

1. Legal safeguarding, risk assessment. Operates by and large within a clear framework.
2. Specific areas of lifestyle that might be relevant to particular positions - can doggers be teachers? Can bare knuckle/unlicensed boxers? [yes and yes, fwiw, but head teachers may well intervene to boot staff out on such grounds.]
3. Moral panics from the press and maybe parents too that will change over time and will move on to different issues as society changes

We've touched on 2. in this thread: would you want someone with a baby fetish running a crèche? [my honest answer, it rings alarm bells in that it doesn't feel 'right', but actually I need to educate myself about it]. For the rest of it there are all kinds of issues in play, but surely the central criterial should be whether the person poses a real threat to children. Beyond that we should support workers who end up being victimised for their lifestyle or identity - trade unionism 101. There will of course be grey areas...

With specific reference to baby fetish, the bit I've bolded is also it for me - it's not something I really know anything about. I am vaguely aware that it is 'a thing', and that's about it. The danger here for all of us is that our judgements regarding what we think is acceptable are dictated by our disgust reactions to certain things. While a disgust reaction might be a good heuristic to go by in everyday life, we can't trust them, and we can change them when we change our level of knowledge.

 

[Pickman's model]

i am disgusted by the kneejerk reactions and the attempts to define dc as trans on this thread

 

[Wilf]

With specific reference to baby fetish, the bit I've bolded is also it for me - it's not something I really know anything about. I am vaguely aware that it is 'a thing', and that's about it. The danger here for all of us is that our judgements regarding what we think is acceptable are dictated by our disgust reactions to certain things. While a disgust reaction might be a good heuristic to go by in everyday life, we can't trust them, and we can change them when we change our level of knowledge.

Yes. With apologies for the mangled language, there are 'prejudicial prejudices', perhaps not much different to moral panics, then there are 'legitimate prejudices', for example I wouldn't want my kids taught by some Randist or alt-right crank - neither of which automatically would or should give me a right to stop someone being employed *. And times change. 30 years ago we might have been talking about the reactions of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells towards the employment of a black or gay teacher.

* though I emphatically have the right to oppose these fuckers elsewhere in the public/political sphere.

 

[cupid_stunt]

It's a dangerous path to go down to say that you think something should be legal (involving consenting adults and with no victim, so you can't think of any reason why it should be illegal), but that you nonetheless judge those who do it in such away that you would want to exclude them from certain other areas of life. We're straying into Section 28 territory here.

So, AC seems to have been into adult baby fetishism, not a problem in a 'standalone situation'.

However, combine that with her father also being into adult baby fetishism & going on to rape a child, plus how they both campaigned on the same issues concerning trans-rights, does somewhat escalate it to a new level.

Not that I suppose it matters, I can't see AC being welcomed back into the GP, unless they are totally fucking bonkers.

 

[Pickman's model]

So, AC seems to have been into adult baby fetishism, not a problem in a 'standalone situation'.

However, combine that with her father also being into adult baby fetishism & going on to rape a child, plus how they both campaigned on the same issues concerning trans-rights, does somewhat escalate it to a new level.

Not that I suppose it matters, I can't see AC being welcomed back into the GP, unless they are totally fucking bonkers.

quite, to the gp ac is png

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So, AC seems to have been into adult baby fetishism, not a problem in a 'standalone situation'.

However, combine that with her father also being into adult baby fetishism & going on to rape a child, plus how they both campaigned on the same issues concerning trans-rights, does somewhat escalate it to a new level.

Not that I suppose it matters, I can't see AC being welcomed back into the GP, unless they are totally fucking bonkers.

This particular case is extremely disturbing on all kinds of levels. My point was more to do with extrapolating from this particular into a general.

 

[Teaboy]

quite, to the gp ac is png

..fo shizzle

 

[andysays]

I don't think its about the state or organisations banning people from doing certain things or occupying political positions - but more that such activity isn't above question when it is relevant to the issues a politician is campaigning on (eg I I would say anything that might impact on safeguarding) especially when said a politician is open or semi-open about their activity (ie has social media accounts where they post pictures of themselves in nappies or whatever).

The very first post of thread calls for the Green Party to suspend Aimee Challenor

Why has Aimee Challenor not been suspended with immediate effect?

and many of the recent posts read to me very much like calls for people to be excluded from political roles by either the state or other organisations, rather than a personal statement that the poster wouldn't vote for such a person.

For clarity, I wouldn't vote for AC, firstly because she's a Green, and then because of the various things which I consider make her unsuitable, but I don't think she should be banned from standing if she chooses. I suspect many of those posting literally want her prevented from standing, and don't care too much how that's achieved.

 

[Santino]

People are always accusing other people of trying to ban things that they haven't tried to ban. What's next, banning people disapproving of things?

 

[Santino]

Do I think industries and utilities should be run for the common good and not for the benefit of shareholders? Yes.

Do I also thereby think that all private property should be banned? Also yes.

 

[Wilf]

People are always accusing other people of trying to ban things that they haven't tried to ban. What's next, banning people disapproving of things?

This.

 

[spanglechick]

I'm a Green Party member. I've met AC briefly at a GP thing in 2017. They are pushy, rude and quite frankly abusive of anyone that doesn't agree with them, but the party hierarchy wanted to be seen as "up" on trans and youth issues, so their behaviour was excused. As for her father, while Aimee was in care around the time the crime for which he was prosecuted took place (for, I believe, their threat to "cyber attack" a shopping centre ), I'm not convinced that they could have been unaware of their father's predelictions, nor that they were not in turned damaged by knowing about them.

All the Challenor children were apparently taken into care amid reports of TC having Muchausen's by proxy, according to the mumsnet researchers.

A child commuting a crime of this nature would never be sufficient cause to have that child and two younger siblings taken into local authority care.

 

[Treacle Toes]

All the Challenor children were apparently taken into care amid reports of TC having Muchausen's by proxy, according to the mumsnet researchers.

A child commuting a crime of this nature would never be sufficient cause to have that child and two younger siblings taken into local authority care.

Mumsnet researchers? Are these people from particular professions breaking confidentiality or jounos?

 

[cupid_stunt]

Mumsnet researchers? Are these people from particular professions breaking confidentiality or jounos?

Most likely just people from the internet.

 

[spanglechick]

Mumsnet researchers? Are these people from particular professions breaking confidentiality or jounos?

People prepared to scour court records and local newspapers to join the dots. Funnily enough, a great many of them coincidentally seem determined to refer to AC as a "he".

 

[ViolentPanda]

All the Challenor children were apparently taken into care amid reports of TC having Muchausen's by proxy, according to the mumsnet researchers.

A child commuting a crime of this nature would never be sufficient cause to have that child and two younger siblings taken into local authority care.

Wasn't aware of the siblings being taken into care too.

 

[emanymton]

The very first post of thread calls for the Green Party to suspend Aimee Challenor

To be fair i think 'lying about the name of your election agent in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that they have been charged with a serious crime' would be grounds for suspension from most parties.

 

[Pickman's model]

People prepared to scour court records and local newspapers to join the dots. Funnily enough, a great many of them coincidentally seem determined to refer to AC as a "he".

Strange that

 

[Lurdan]

People prepared to scour court records and local newspapers to join the dots. Funnily enough, a great many of them coincidentally seem determined to refer to AC as a "he".

it's worth taking note that the court document, from which excerpts are being extracted and circulated on twitter and elsewhere, is a High Court judgement the first line of which says

The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.

So identifying Aimee Challenor and her family as the people referred to in that judgement is a breach of a court order.

I'd imagine that if a Court were to throw the book at anyone for this they might also find themselves less than amused that this judgement is being quoted in a mendaciously selective way in order to make a defamatory suggestion that is the exact opposite of what it actually concludes.

None of the excerpts I have seen identify their source in this judgement, but refer vaguely to 'court document' or 'medical evidence'. I'd suggest great caution in quoting online discussions about this families medical history and its dealings with social services.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i am disgusted by the kneejerk reactions and the attempts to define dc as trans on this thread

TBF, I'm disgusted by Mr Jones the teacher. The bloke seems to have more kinks than one of those curly phone cables after it's been twisted hither and thither for a decade or two.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do I think industries and utilities should be run for the common good and not for the benefit of shareholders? Yes.

Do I also thereby think that all private property should be banned? Also yes.

Goddam Godless Pinko Commie!!!

Would you like to buy a copy of Socialist Worker, comrade?

 

[Pickman's model]

TBF, I'm disgusted by Mr Jones the teacher. The bloke seems to have more kinks than one of those curly phone cables after it's been twisted hither and thither for a decade or two.

i'm just glad it's not jones the steam in the frame.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i'm just glad it's not jones the steam in the frame.

Jones the Steam is an upstanding member of the community, boyo. Goes to Chapel thrice a week, he does!