NationStates

The Archregimancy wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Does her former partner feel any continued abuse from the indecent, or is suffering mental trauma from it after x many years?

No.

Mr Davis has long-since moved on.

Then there's nothing further to discuss.

Sure, it was idiotic of her trying to justify her tapping him hard, but there is no similarity to, let's say, the domestic concerns that revolved around BoJo.

Celritannia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
MRAs didn't care much about the assault. They took the "One-off incident" approach, right up until she tried to justify it.

Does her former partner feel any continued abuse from the indecent, or is suffering mental trauma from it after x many years?

Largely irrelevant to the concern, which was her comments. It's like Trumps "Grab em by the pussy, I don't even wait" shit. Even if every woman consented with him and didn't have a problem with it, that's a dangerous idea to be spreading as normal.

("It's okay to hit your boyfriend if you're stressed, mine didn't have a problem with it so it's okay" + "Just grab em by the pussy, don't even ask. Nobodies had a problem with it with me!").

The Archregimancy wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
MRAs didn't care much about the assault. They took the "One-off incident" approach, right up until she tried to justify it.

Yes, yes.

Note that I did at least do you the courtesy of deleting the snarky 'and no prizes for guessing where Ostro stands' line from my original post before hitting 'submit'.

I think it feeds into your "She better have a better answer than before" point though. It was her answer to that incident that pissed people off.

I think the issue is, if she uses that answer again, she's basically condoning abuse.
If she backtracks, the risk is in admitting fault and the media will smell blood in the water, even if she does manage to win over people previously pissed off by having convincingly grown on the issue.

The best shot is to backtrack, but that's a risk if she isn't adept enough to navigate the media frenzy in the follow up.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Does her former partner feel any continued abuse from the indecent, or is suffering mental trauma from it after x many years?

Largely irrelevant to the concern, which was her comments. It's like Trumps "Grab em by the pussy, I don't even wait" shit. Even if every woman consented with him and didn't have a problem with it, that's a dangerous idea to be spreading as normal.

That's a terrible comparison.

Celritannia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Largely irrelevant to the concern, which was her comments. It's like Trumps "Grab em by the pussy, I don't even wait" shit. Even if every woman consented with him and didn't have a problem with it, that's a dangerous idea to be spreading as normal.

That's a terrible comparison.

I don't see how it's a terrible comparison. Could you elaborate?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
That's a terrible comparison.

I don't see how it's a terrible comparison. Could you elaborate?

Trump is an overall terrible person, who says terrible things. You are comparing an actual misogynist to a minor dispute.

The Archregimancy wrote:But it's a matter of emphasis rather than serious disagreement, and realistically my focusing on superficials merely predicts what both NSG and much of the British media will spend most of the next few years wringing their hands over.

Well, it's not as if they can expect much better. Its either that or "and the Lib Dems did or said something, but nobody really cared."

I just don't think they are particularly relevant at the moment. Which is why at least with Moran dropping dumb soundbites on Twitter there will be something vaguely interesting about them.

Celritannia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I don't see how it's a terrible comparison. Could you elaborate?

Trump is an overall terrible person, who says terrible things. You are comparing an actual misogynist to a minor dispute.

I'm talking about those incidents in isolation.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Trump is an overall terrible person, who says terrible things. You are comparing an actual misogynist to a minor dispute.

I'm talking about those incidents in isolation.

And the incidents themselves also relate to the people in question.

Celritannia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I'm talking about those incidents in isolation.

And the incidents themselves also relate to the people in question.

That's right, they do.

Souseiseki wrote:hot take: tim farron's position was reasonable and moral given his circumstances and it's only due to the UK's insistence on ideological and cultural purity he got booted. essentially, he was punished for being a wrongthinker.

Well, Tim Farron is still an MP, so it didn't end his political career, at least.

Internal LibDem discussion at the time came down on the side of 'it doesn't matter if his personal convictions are over gay sex so long as he supports equal rights for the LGBT+ community; disagreeing while supporting the rights of people who disagree with you is a fundamentally liberal position'. Farron's voting record in support of same sex marriage is actually strongly in favour across his career, but he never quite recovered from his vote against the 2007 Sexual Orientation Equality Act - a vote that even I never really heard a satisfactory explanation for. So he allowed the perception to build that his stand on LGBT rights was muddled.

And really, knowing that the question was likely coming, he should have worked out an answer before he was asked; he allowed himself to get tied in semantic knots over the issue. So even if we argue that he was unfairly punished for his views, he also didn't show the political skills necessary to run a national political party that's struggling to get across its message after suffering a devastating election result.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
And the incidents themselves also relate to the people in question.

That's right, they do.

So you are linking a misogynist to a minor indecent is a terrible comparison.

You yourself have mentioned that when a man does something once, it should not warrant for a woman to be scared of him. Yet you are criticising a woman for doing one thing that did not really cause any problems.

Double standards.

Hirota wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:But it's a matter of emphasis rather than serious disagreement, and realistically my focusing on superficials merely predicts what both NSG and much of the British media will spend most of the next few years wringing their hands over.

Well, it's not as if they can expect much better. Its either that or "and the Lib Dems did or said something, but nobody really cared."

I just don't think they are particularly relevant at the moment. Which is why at least with Moran dropping dumb soundbites on Twitter there will be something vaguely interesting about them.

Ah well, see... there's a bright side after all!

Celritannia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
That's right, they do.

So you are linking a misogynist to a minor indecent is a terrible comparison.

You yourself have mentioned that when a man does something once, it should not warrant for a woman to be scared of him. Yet you are criticising a woman for doing one thing that did not really cause any problems.

Double standards.

I'm not criticizing her for the act dude. I'm criticizing her for trying to justify it rather than accept fault. I don't want her pulling that shit whenever this topic comes up.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
So you are linking a misogynist to a minor indecent is a terrible comparison.

You yourself have mentioned that when a man does something once, it should not warrant for a woman to be scared of him. Yet you are criticising a woman for doing one thing that did not really cause any problems.

Double standards.

I'm not criticizing her for the act dude. I'm criticizing her for trying to justify it rather than accept fault. I don't want her pulling that shit whenever this topic comes up.

And yet, people hardly care about it, so why do you?

Celritannia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I'm not criticizing her for the act dude. I'm criticizing her for trying to justify it rather than accept fault. I don't want her pulling that shit whenever this topic comes up.

And yet, people hardly care about it, so why do you?

Because she's going to be asked about it and I don't want a party leader spamming everywhere the notion that it's fine to hit your boyfriend if you are stressed, and I don't want partisan activists to signal boost that idea on her behalf.

I don't care if her boyfriend doesn't care about that happening to him.

That's why the Trump pussy comparison is apt.

Personally, I don't envy the Lib Dems having to choose between Ed "deregulation" Davey and Layla Moran, the bare knuckle NIMBY. Davey's probably the stronger choice for taking on the Tories, but I think the members will try to hedge their bets with Moran, which I suspect will backfire as she's too weird to have mainstream appeal.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:

Somehow I doubt pubs are registered as data handlers for the purposes of the Data Protection Act.

You don't need to be registered: if you control personal data, then you are a data controller for DPA purposes (though they might instead be data processors if they're just acting as proxies for the government, not sure which framework they're using).

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
And yet, people hardly care about it, so why do you?

Because she's going to be asked about it and I don't want a party leader spamming everywhere the notion that it's fine to hit your boyfriend if you are stressed, and I don't want partisan activists to signal boost that idea on her behalf.

I don't care if her boyfriend doesn't care about that happening to him.

That's why the Trump pussy comparison is apt.

Realistically, who will care about it?

The Trump comparison is anything but apt.

The New California Republic wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:
Somehow I doubt pubs are registered as data handlers for the purposes of the Data Protection Act.

Ironically in the past I have tried handing out CVs and cover letters for jobs, and the Manager has flatly refused, citing that they cannot hold info on me because of the Data Protection Act, yet giving many of the same deets to a barman is fine.

The mind boggles.

The managers are talking out of their arse: holding information that you've been asked to hold for an obviously legitimate legal purpose is not a DPA problem at all.

Souseiseki wrote:

Celritannia wrote:She is a vile woman.

it's legit hard to tell whether priti is a legit horrible person or just a pathetic patsy who goes along with whatever the party tells her (we know in this government people are promoted based on loyalty and meekishness not skill or conviction) and got dumped into the mr. nasty office and now feels she needs to be a raving authoritarian minority slapping dickhead to play the part

e: that's not a political nickname but a commentary on how home secretaries are required to adopt a certain public persona as part of their role but i'm not going to spend an excessive amount of time getting into it unless i have to

I noticed in one of the coronavirus briefings that she seems to be literally incapable of saying the word "sorry". She was using some tortured phrasing to avoid saying "Sorry, could you repeat that".

And this, ladies, gentlemen, and non-binary posters, is what this thread is going to look like for the next few years if Moran wins the leadership contest.

Not that the real world bases its political dynamics on NSG threads - thank God - but you might as well brace yourselves; depending on how much you care, of course.

Celritannia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Because she's going to be asked about it and I don't want a party leader spamming everywhere the notion that it's fine to hit your boyfriend if you are stressed, and I don't want partisan activists to signal boost that idea on her behalf.

I don't care if her boyfriend doesn't care about that happening to him.

That's why the Trump pussy comparison is apt.

Realistically, who will care about it?

The Trump comparison is anything but apt.

People who care about DV against men. Not a majority to be sure, but a sizable enough minority to raise hell.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
And yet, people hardly care about it, so why do you?

Because she's going to be asked about it and I don't want a party leader spamming everywhere the notion that it's fine to hit your boyfriend if you are stressed, and I don't want partisan activists to signal boost that idea on her behalf.

I don't care if her boyfriend doesn't care about that happening to him.

That's why the Trump pussy comparison is apt.

I'd add to that. Nobody cared when it happened in 2013 because she wasn't an MP. In 2017 it came to light because she became an MP. Now, with the chance to become party leader (and dictate party policy) it's more relevant. Are the lib dems under her watch going to be a tad more nuanced than what normally happens when politicans are talking about domestic violence?

I'd like to hope so.

Hirota wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Because she's going to be asked about it and I don't want a party leader spamming everywhere the notion that it's fine to hit your boyfriend if you are stressed, and I don't want partisan activists to signal boost that idea on her behalf.

I don't care if her boyfriend doesn't care about that happening to him.

That's why the Trump pussy comparison is apt.

I'd add to that. Nobody cared when it happened in 2013 because she wasn't an MP. In 2017 it came to light because she became an MP. Now, with the chance to become party leader (and dictate party policy) it's more relevant. Are the lib dems under her watch going to be a tad more nuanced than what normally happens when politicans are talking about domestic violence?

I'd like to hope so.

I mean there's some opportunity for praxis there if she becomes leader, to force her into adopting more positive DV legislation and so on. But that assumes she wouldn't just double down and start talking about the patriarchy when confronted with these demands, and just start wailing about being harassed and threatened to the media who then make that the story instead of people noting that her DV policy contradicts her own personal experiences.

The question is what sort of person she is, and I'm not really sure. I've seen nothing to indicate she wouldn't be negative on the issue, but if she were positive i'd assume she'd grown as a person and may even support her if it informed her DV policy to be more pro-men.

Ostroeuropa wrote:The question is what sort of person she is, and I'm not really sure. I've seen nothing to indicate she wouldn't be negative on the issue, but if she were positive i'd assume she'd grown as a person and may even support her if it informed her DV policy to be more pro-men.

I'm not particularly interested in her being "pro-men" as if it's an either/or proposition the smacks of tribalism - just seek to counter stupid, ham-fisted policies that fail to accurately address the nuances of the issue and in many cases ignore that domestic violence is not a matter of a is always and only violent against b, and b is not always and only a victim of violence by a.