The Green Party has some serious questions to answer

[Athos]

putting your legal hat on, would that be a defence to any libel action taken against urban 75?

Yes. On the basis that it's true; he is a paedophile - he freely admits a sexual interest in children.

 

[Athos]

I've no doubt that Challenor is, at once, a victim and a misguided person who has acted appallingly. But she's not representative of trans people. Similarly, Glinner, who is increasingly looking like a weird obsessive, isn't representative of any group.

 

[co-op]

Cool, so you agree that Women’s Place (who want to roll back all aspects of the gra and introduce harsher toilet laws, for example) are transphobes. That’s a start.

No they're clearly not transphobes. The GRA derives from the theory that sex is a social construct but that gender is innate, thats, (a) stupid and obviously wrong and (b) reactionary, misogynistic and homophobic.

 

[killer b]

good to be reminded why all the trans threads are on ignore, if nothing else.

 

[belboid]

No they're clearly not transphobes. The GRA derives from the theory that sex is a social construct but that gender is innate, thats, (a) stupid and obviously wrong and (b) reactionary, misogynistic and homophobic.

Blimey, so you don’t agree with the definition of transphobe that you just made, I am shocked and amazed.

(you also don’t seem to understand what the 2004 gra is, but hey ho)

 

[trashpony]

Can we PLEASE just discuss this issue?

I think there's a really interesting discussion to be had here about social media and its responsibilities to its users. AC's status as a trans person is neither here nor there except inasmuch as Wilf has said if it means that Challenor is not held to the same standards as other people.

It would be a shame if that discussion got derailed into tit-for-tat stuff.

But this is u75. It's what happens. Who am I kidding?

 

[belboid]

I think a definition of transphobic is quite useful, although I agree a full discussion on what the gra (amended proposals or as it stood) isn’t of much use.

I’m not sure Challenor is alone in using their oppression as a means of closing down debate, it’s all too commonly used by people from all oppressed groups.

 

[killer b]

But this is u75. It's what happens. Who am I kidding?

it's what happens everywhere tbf. It's an incredibly polarised debate, and many people involved in it have entrenched and deeply held views.

FWIW, I agree social media platforms have a duty of care to their users, and that platforms with a lot of kids and vulnerable adults should probably CRB check their admins or similar. I think you'd struggle to find anyone who really disagrees with that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Can we PLEASE just discuss this issue?

I think there's a really interesting discussion to be had here about social media and its responsibilities to its users. AC's status as a trans person is neither here nor there except inasmuch as Wilf has said that it means that Challenor is not held to the same standards as other people.

It would be a shame if that discussion got derailed into tit-for-tat stuff.

But this is u75. It's what happens. Who am I kidding?

I admit that I know next to nothing about reddit other than that it exists. But it will be interesting to see whether they admit to any culpability in hiring Challenor-Knight. Unfortunately, my bet would be that if she loses her job over this, she will pop up somewhere else eventually. She probably isn't capable of seeing the damage she does and changing her patterns.

Her being trans matters inasmuch as she herself foregrounds it. I hope trans-rights campaigners make sure they have nothing to do with her. She will only damage their efforts.

 

[co-op]

FWIW, I agree social media platforms have a duty of care to their users, and that platforms with a lot of kids and vulnerable adults should probably CRB check their admins or similar. I think you'd struggle to find anyone who really disagrees with that.

You know the only reason AC is not still a Reddit admin quietly deleting GC and lesbian subreddits and banning their users is because she was found out by people who were all denounced as "bigots". "transphobes" and "TERFs" don't you?

 

[hitmouse]

I've no doubt that Challenor is, at once, a victim and a misguided person who has acted appallingly. But she's not representative of trans people. Similarly, Glinner, who is increasingly looking like a weird obsessive, isn't representative of any group.

What about people who post Glinner links and defend them as being useful?

 

[co-op]

What about people who post Glinner links and defend them as being useful?

They were useful, they contained for example a screenshot of AC stating that she had been made a Reddit Admin. If someone else had better links, they were free to post them. The fact that you think Linehan is an obsessive doesn't change this. It's about real facts, evidence, stuff like that.

 

[Athos]

What about people who post Glinner links and defend them as being useful?

It depends. There's a big difference between, say, posting something in which he spouts an iffy opinion, and posting something in which he provides facts with sources. Though, tactically, even in the latter case it'd be better just to refer to the source material, to avoid getting sidetracked about Glinner himself!

 

[belboid]

They were useful, they contained for example a screenshot of AC stating that she had been made a Reddit Admin. If someone else had better links, they were free to post them. The fact that you think Linehan is an obsessive doesn't change this. It's about real facts, evidence, stuff like that.

There’s nowt wrong with being obsessive. But there is with inventing fake id’s in order to harass and dox people. Hardly makes him or his screenshots reliable.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What about people who post Glinner links and defend them as being useful?

In this instance they provided useful information. Linehan may be a weird obsessive, but the research regarding Nathaniel Knight was potentially important if it is true that he and his wife are involved in children's charities. Don't want paedophiles involved in children's charities. That's kind of a given, no?

I'd put linking to that on the same level as me linking to mumsnet. It was the place I had found with the information I wanted. And I was satisfied that it was very likely correct information.

 

[Wilf]

I think the left needs to have it's own discussion about 'victimhood', quite distinct from the right's attempt to smear victims of oppression in terms of 'victimhood'. In fact so different from the right's discussion that you wouldn't call it a victimhood discussion'. In part, it runs as a 'problems of identity politics' debate, but I'm more thinking of an emperor's new clothes maturity of discussion. Yeah, that person might be a victim of oppression, but it should be possible to note they are an absolute self interested and destructive shit. That applies in this case, though I'm sure AC is damaged as has been noted. But even more so there should be a 'politics free' ability to call people out for exploitative behaviour. In that I'm thinking of all the abusive little cult leaders on the left. That would stretch as far as Alex Salmond who I see is going on the offensive again today. Even his own barrister descrbibed him as a 'bullying sex pest', while his colleagues chose to ignore it.

 

[co-op]

In this instance they provided useful information. Linehan may be a weird obsessive, but the research regarding Nathaniel Knight was potentially important if it is true that he and his wife are involved in children's charities. Don't want paedophiles involved in children's charities. That's kind of a given, no?

I'd put linking to that on the same level as me linking to mumsnet. It was the place I had found with the information I wanted. And I was satisfied that it was very likely correct information.

So we're getting posters saying they're glad that the information about AC is in the public domain, but everyone seems happyish with the idea that we can slate the people who found that info and put it in the public domain as "bigots", "TERFs" and "transphobes" or "obsessives".


That's not really working for me. You either give a shit about the problem of fetishists and pedophiles hiding under the trans umbrella or you don't. One way of giving a shit would be to stop throwing these abusive terms around like confetti and trying to use them to silence people.

 

[belboid]

The BNPs campaign against paedophilia was more convincing than Linehan’s.

 

[Santino]

Everyone shut the fuck up about Linehan, starting............ now.

taps sign

 

[Wilf]

taps sign

Careful now!

 

[Idris2002]

Down with this sort of whatchemacallit

 

[hitmouse]

They were useful, they contained for example a screenshot of AC stating that she had been made a Reddit Admin. If someone else had better links, they were free to post them. The fact that you think Linehan is an obsessive doesn't change this. It's about real facts, evidence, stuff like that.

Where would you put Linehan on a scale of bad "hating transpeople and wanting to limit their social political and legal rights" to good "anyone who thinks gender identity theory [whatever that is when it's at home] is wrong"?

In this instance they provided useful information. Linehan may be a weird obsessive, but the research regarding Nathaniel Knight was potentially important if it is true that he and his wife are involved in children's charities. Don't want paedophiles involved in children's charities. That's kind of a given, no?

I'd put linking to that on the same level as me linking to mumsnet. It was the place I had found with the information I wanted. And I was satisfied that it was very likely correct information.

I mean, a) you apologised for linking to mumsnet, I think there's a difference between saying "sorry this is a bit of a dodgy source but I think the info seems to be valid" and just going "look at this", and b) honestly in that instance I think it'd be better to just go straight to the primary source and post stuff straight from reddit or wherever.

(sorry santino)

 

[BigTom]

btw, I’m pretty sure it would be unlawful to refuse someone a job because of their partners convictions.

Would you then be able to refuse a hire on this basis?

"Disqualification by Association" is the term here and yes, in childcare settings you can refuse a hire because of the people that someone lives with:

Childcare Disqualification

The purpose of this document is to summarise the childcare disqualification arrangements operating from 31 August 2018 for members in England.

neu.org.uk

.

What does disqualification ‘by association’ mean?
Disqualification ‘by association’ meant you could be disqualified from providing childcare in a school setting because of an offence or offences committed by someone who lived in your household. However, because of a change to the law, schools are no longer required to ask staff providing, or employed to provide, childcare if they are disqualified by association.

...
Does this mean I am under no obligation to inform my head teacher if someone I live with has or obtains a criminal record?
No it doesn’t. It means your head teacher and school governing body should not demand disclosure, but it does not mean you may remain silent even where it would be appropriate for you to confide in your head teacher. You should remember that you have a contractual obligation to safeguard the children in your care. This may sometimes mean disclosing information about people in your personal life which you may prefer not to disclose. Your head teacher may need to assess whether the people you are close to, and who may have access to school premises and/or to pupils’ information because of their association with you, represent a risk of harm to pupils and then to take appropriate steps to mitigate any perceived risk. Members have been dismissed and, on some occasions, prohibited from teaching altogether, because they failed to disclose information about offences – and even a police investigation of an alleged offence –committed by a spouse, partner, child or close friend.

Our advice is to speak to your head teacher or chair of governors (where you are the head) the moment you become aware that a relative or friend (with whom you may or may not live) is, or has been, the subject of a police investigation, charge or conviction for offences against a child and/or a violent offence against an adult.

 

[BigTom]

On the topic at hand I'm in agreement with those who have said that being an admin of a social media site (and formerly if not currently the mod of various subreddits including ones aimed at teenagers) is not a suitable job for someone who has been, at best, so negligent about safeguarding issues in the past, and at worst actively enabling paedophilia. I think social media sites have responsibility towards their users, who are generally aged 13+ as far as the terms of the sites are concerned, so still built with teenagers in mind and no practical way to prevent younger people from using them even if they had the desire to do so.

 

[belboid]

"Disqualification by Association" is the term here and yes, in childcare settings you can refuse a hire because of the people that someone lives with:

Childcare Disqualification

The purpose of this document is to summarise the childcare disqualification arrangements operating from 31 August 2018 for members in England.

neu.org.uk

.

So that’s a ‘no’ for being a moderator on an internet website then

 

[Knotted]

I'm not talking about reddit - I'm talking about the usual idiotic chant of "transphobia" from the liberal left whenever this issue comes up, which it does with depressing regularity. In the case of Reddit it is the site's owners and upper echelons who have circled their wagons around AC, I'm sure they aren't just super-neo-liberal corporate wankers or anything. Same with twitter who'll ban you for saying you're a woman if a transwoman complains about it. But yeah, "most oppressed minority evah".

Who got banned from Twitter?

 

[Athos]

So that’s a ‘no’ for being a moderator on an internet website then

Is it? What provision of employment law prevents a prospective employer from discriminating against someone for associating with a paedophile? I'm not sure it's as clear cut as you think.

 

[co-op]

Who got banned from Twitter?

Twitter regularly bans gender critical posters while letting pretty nasty misogynistic abuse stand.

 

[hitmouse]

If you say you're a woman these days, you get arrested and thrown in twitter jail.

 

[JTG]

If you say you're a woman these days, you get arrested and thrown in twitter jail.

When did this come in?