Tim Farron reveals himself as a liar

[floo]

I think they are referring to the fact that you quite often bring up the concept of Jesus being in a relationship with one of his disciples. An argument which may have had some relevance once (although I don't think it has), but one which has now lost its power due to overuse.

If you say so.

[Rhiannon]

Just to note that Farron resigned because he decided he couldn’t be a political leader and remain faithful to Christ. It’s in his resignation speech, one that Jennie Rigg described as ‘awful’ in the New Statesman.

[Sassy]

And an idiot

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/42638420

I remember in the 70's one of the guys at our Church youth group who was around 25 did not know sex before marriage was wrong for believers. When in a conversation he was shocked to find out he was wrong. He wasn't a liar just ill-informed.

But each to his own beliefs. As long as those beliefs do not make people hurt others. All sins are sin and no difference in the eyes of God.
So whatever sin you sin, you are guilty of breaking all the laws. Interesting when you think about it. No point in pointing the finger. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Just to note that Farron resigned because he decided he couldn’t be a political leader and remain faithful to Christ. It’s in his resignation speech, one that Jennie Rigg described as ‘awful’ in the New Statesman.

True and Jennie also said she wrote in sorrow rather than anger and can’t understand his reasoning his speech. More importantly, she doesn’t think his political work to protect LGBT+ is awful and said she would miss Tim and the next leader would have a lot to live up to.

Hopefully he’ll be back after a rest, in a prominent Lib-Dem role that will allow him to continue his exemplary political work for LGBT+.

[Rhiannon]

Aside from his political friends, people don’t think his record is exemplary.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hopefully he’ll be back after a rest, in a prominent Lib-Dem role that will allow him to continue his exemplary political work for LGBT+.

Don't make me laugh.

During the time when Farron has been an MP there have only been two really serious votes on gay rights issues, all the rest were merely early stage procedural votes or merely neatening legislation.

The two serious votes being:

1. The 3rd reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - the vote that actually enshrined so-called gay marriage in law. Did he vote in favour - nope he was no-where to be seen, absenting himself from the vote.

2. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations - the legislation that made discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation unlawful. Did old Timmy vote in favour - nope. So I guess he abstained - nope, wrong again. Farron voted against - in effect he voted to continue to make it lawful to refuse to serve someone because they are gay, to refuse to employ them for the same reason, to pass them over for promotion for the same reason. Farron did not want it to be unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Some friend of the LGB community.

So on two of the three biggest votes in support of gay rights (the other being the legalisation of homosexuality back in the 1960s) Farron voted against one and absented himself on the other.

[ProfessorDavey]

Aside from his political friends, people don’t think his record is exemplary.

Both of the people Gabriella mentions as supporters of Farron's record, Jennie Rigg and Caron Lindsay have both in recent days come our strongly against Farron on the basis of his recent statement.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Don't make me laugh.

During the time when Farron has been an MP there have only been two really serious votes on gay rights issues, all the rest were merely early stage procedural votes or merely neatening legislation.

The two serious votes being:

1. The 3rd reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - the vote that actually enshrined so-called gay marriage in law. Did he vote in favour - nope he was no-where to be seen, absenting himself from the vote.

2. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations - the legislation that made discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation unlawful. Did old Timmy vote in favour - nope. So I guess he abstained - nope, wrong again. Farron voted against - in effect he voted to continue to make it lawful to refuse to serve someone because they are gay, to refuse to employ them for the same reason, to pass them over for promotion for the same reason. Farron did not want it to be unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Some friend of the LGB community.

So on two of the three biggest votes in support of gay rights (the other being the legalisation of homosexuality back in the 1960s) Farron voted against one and absented himself on the other.

Argue it with Jennie Rigg - the acting chair of Lib-Dem LGBT+ whose article I linked to explains the reasons for his vote. Because of your bias you probably prefer your narrative over hers. That's fine - as a liberal I think you are free to hold whatever beliefs you want about Farron.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Both of the people Gabriella mentions as supporters of Farron's record, Jennie Rigg and Caron Lindsay have both in recent days come our strongly against Farron on the basis of his recent statement.

Happy to look at the link and see what they actually said. I don't trust your narrative, given your obvious biased and illiberal attitude and what looked like dishonest quote-mining in previous replies on this thread.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Aside from his political friends, people don’t think his record is exemplary.

People? Oh no, not people! Surely not - why didn't you say so. Well if people say that it must be true.  Not surprisingly I'll take the evidence presented by the acting chair of the Lib-Dem  LGBT+ over your vague posts about "people". 

[Rhiannon]

People? Oh no, not people! Surely not - why didn't you say so. Well if people say that it must be true.  Not surprisingly I'll take the evidence presented by the acting chair of the Lib-Dem  LGBT+ over your vague posts about "people".

No, I’ll take the hurt expressed by the guy in Pink News (as linked to earlier) over one of Farron’s chums.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, I’ll take the hurt expressed by the guy in Pink News (as linked to earlier) over one of Farron’s chums.

Oh yes - I remember that person. He was feeling hurt wasn't he? Vivid imagination about Farron expecting him to sit at the back of the bus.

I'll take the evidence of the atheist acting chair of Lib-Dem LGBT+ - she seems to be friends with Farron because of all the work he has done in support of LGBT+ rights.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'll take the evidence of the atheist acting chair of Lib-Dem LGBT+ - she seems to be friends with Farron because of all the work he has done in support of LGBT+ rights.

Don't be so naive - there is no evidence that Farron was 'friends' with either Rigg or Lindsay - they were party colleagues.

Both links you provide are to articles written by senior LibDem party officials, written in the middle of a general election campaign where their leader's record on gay rights was under fire. What do you expect them to say under those circumstances - they will, and were almost certainly asked to by the campaign management, come to his defence. That both have distances themselves from Farron more recently speaks volumes as to their real thoughts on Farron and LGBT+ issues.

This is what Rigg said, when not required to support him in a general election campaign, triggered by his resignation speech, which you will remember effectively said he couldn't be leader and a christian:

'It was awful. Pious, self-pitying, upsetting to all three of the overlapping circles in the Venn diagram of liberals, Christians, and LGBT+ people, and semantically dubious to boot. I genuinely do not know what he was thinking, other than (I suspect) “I am knackered after a bruising election campaign in which I came within 500 votes of doubling our seats”. Many LGBT+ people are horrified that the speech confirmed all their worst fears about “what Tim really thinks”. LGBT+ Christians are horrified that he has posited a basic incompatibility between their religion and their sexuality. Liberals are horrified that he said that he had to choose between liberalism and Christianity, when one of our founding principles is freedom of religion.'

Note the line:

'Many LGBT+ people are horrified that the speech confirmed all their worst fears about “what Tim really thinks”.'

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Don't be so naive - there is no evidence that Farron was 'friends' with either Rigg or Lindsay - they were party colleagues.

Both links you provide are to articles written by senior LibDem party officials, written in the middle of a general election campaign where their leader's record on gay rights was under fire. What do you expect them to say under those circumstances - they will, and were almost certainly asked to by the campaign management, come to his defence. That both have distances themselves from Farron more recently speaks volumes as to their real thoughts on Farron and LGBT+ issues.

This is what Rigg said, when not required to support him in a general election campaign, triggered by his resignation speech, which you will remember effectively said he couldn't be leader and a christian:

'It was awful. Pious, self-pitying, upsetting to all three of the overlapping circles in the Venn diagram of liberals, Christians, and LGBT+ people, and semantically dubious to boot. I genuinely do not know what he was thinking, other than (I suspect) “I am knackered after a bruising election campaign in which I came within 500 votes of doubling our seats”. Many LGBT+ people are horrified that the speech confirmed all their worst fears about “what Tim really thinks”. LGBT+ Christians are horrified that he has posited a basic incompatibility between their religion and their sexuality. Liberals are horrified that he said that he had to choose between liberalism and Christianity, when one of our founding principles is freedom of religion.'

Note the line:

'Many LGBT+ people are horrified that the speech confirmed all their worst fears about “what Tim really thinks”.'

You're confused Prof D - it was Rhiannon who claimed Rigg and Farron were political friends and I was responding to her point that they were political friends. Let's not derail the thread by you irrelevantly insisting that your opinions on friends are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. We'll just agree to disagree.

In fact the headline of Jennie's response to Farron's resignation speech was "Tim Farron's resignation speech was awful - but he was a friend to Lib Dem LGBT members".

I am sure it will be relatively easy for you to contact Jennie and advise her to stop being naive for describing Farron as a friend.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/06/tim-farrons-resignation-speech-was-awful-he-was-friend-lib-dem-lgbt

By the way - you copy and paste the URL to add a link so people can read and interpret the whole article for themselves rather than take your word for it - if you only paste selective quotes without the link you appear dishonest and untrustworthy.

My view is that Farron has previously changed his political position on political issues - as have other MPs - and I don't have a problem with an MP changing their political position so long as they inform the party members and voters of their new position. I don't have an issue with waiting and seeing what emerges politically after his "awful" resignation speech in terms of his political work for LGBT+.

I don't care what his theological position is - he is not my friend, I don't need to hang out with him, this is not a personal relationship. Not that the media ever got around to asking him this theological question but if they did hound him on it and if he was forced to answer and he described practising Islam as a sin it has little impact on me and I think his freedom to hold that belief is more important than any discomfort I feel  - as much as I believe your right to tell me I have inferior behavioural standards to you is more important than any discomfort I might feel about your opinion (given we're not friends either). It wouldn't surprise me if some Christians say that practising Islam is a sin based on their interpretation of their own theology.

Farron's speech started off well - he talked about his Christian faith i.e. his interpretation rather than saying he speaks for all Christians. But then it got awful when he started generalising by saying "living as a faithful Christian" as though Christians who disagreed with his interpretation weren't faithful Christians. But after that blip he went back to talking about his own short-comings in being unable to reconcile his faith with his role as leader - as he said a better, wiser person than him might have been able to deal with this more successfully. I didn't think that part was awful. And I thought the next part was spot on:

"I'm a liberal to my finger tips, and that liberalism means that I am passionate about defending the rights and liberties of people who believe different things to me.

There are Christians in politics who take the view that they should impose the tenets of faith on society, but I have not taken that approach because I disagree with it - it's not liberal and it is counterproductive when it comes to advancing the gospel.

Even so, I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in.

In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society.

That's why I have chosen to step down as leader of the Liberal Democrats."

https://www.libdems.org.uk/liberal-democrat-leader-tim-farron-resigns

In the world of politics I am only interested in Farron's political stance and how it impacts me.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the world of politics I am only interested in Farron's political stance and how it impacts me.

An awful lot of waffle so I cut to the chase - your final comment.

Surely the most clearcut way to determine someone's political stance, as an MP, is how they vote in critical votes in Parliament. In this respect Farron's record on gay rights is really poor.

He voted in favour of allowing discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation to continue (Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations).

He failed to turn up in the key vote on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill — its Third Reading, the vote that actually enshrined equal marriage in law.

In the time he has been an MP these are the only two votes with major consequences to the LGB community - all the others are either procedural or window-dressing. In neither case did he vote in favour.

Actually his opposition to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations is most telling. Suggesting Farron is a supporter of gay rights when he voted against making it unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is a bit like claiming someone is in favour of equal rights for women despite them voting against the Equal Pay Act 1970.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

An awful lot of waffle so I cut to the chase - your final comment.

Not surprising that you think other people's opinions are waffle while your opinion is...er not. At least you're consistent on here.

Surely the most clearcut way to determine someone's political stance, as an MP, is how they vote in critical votes in Parliament. In this respect Farron's record on gay rights is really poor.

He voted in favour of allowing discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation to continue (Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations).

He failed to turn up in the key vote on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill — its Third Reading, the vote that actually enshrined equal marriage in law.

In the time he has been an MP these are the only two votes with major consequences to the LGB community - all the others are either procedural or window-dressing. In neither case did he vote in favour.

Actually his opposition to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations is most telling. Suggesting Farron is a supporter of gay rights when he voted against making it unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is a bit like claiming someone is in favour of equal rights for women despite them voting against the Equal Pay Act 1970.

My view hasn't changed from reply #205 when you last raised this same point. I believe I said argue it with  Jennie Rigg - the acting chair of Lib-Dem LGBT+ whose article I linked to explains Farron's reason for abstaining. Because of your bias you probably prefer your narrative over hers. That's fine - as a liberal I think you are free to hold whatever beliefs you want about Farron.

Farron himself has explained he did not vote on the 3rd reading because he disagreed with the spousal veto clause that meant when a married trans person seeks gender recognition, their spouse must give permission. His interview can be found here.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/20/interview-tim-farron-addresses-anti-gay-voting-record-and-calls-for-church-of-england-to-be-disestablished/

Pink News article on the issue of spousal veto:

"The legislation states, and the government will tell you, that the spouse is consenting for the marriage to continue. In practise, they actually have the power to consent – or not – to their partner’s gender being legally recognised.

Because if they do not give permission “for the marriage to continue” then the trans person is blocked from having their gender recognised. The marriage continues to exist.

The trans person is given six months to end the marriage. The other partner still has the power to refuse – meaning potentially costly and lengthy divorce proceedings for the trans spouse. During which time they do not have legal gender recognition or the associated protections afforded by it."

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/08/07/feature-what-is-the-trans-spousal-veto-and-why-does-it-matter/

Did you want a clear-cut way to determine someone's political stance, as an MP, or an accurate way? You can't be much of an academic if you only rely on 10 year old historical data to reach conclusions. If you actually care what Farron's political stance is there are plenty of interviews with him about LGBT+ issues since the  2007 vote you brought up. Oh and did I mention that Jennie Rigg, acting chair of Lib-Dem LGBT+.....

On the other hand if you just come on here to feel superior over anyone who disagrees with you - carry on.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

1. The 3rd reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - the vote that actually enshrined so-called gay marriage in law. Did he vote in favour - nope he was no-where to be seen, absenting himself from the vote.

2. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations - the legislation that made discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation unlawful. Did old Timmy vote in favour - nope. So I guess he abstained - nope, wrong again. Farron voted against - in effect he voted to continue to make it lawful to refuse to serve someone because they are gay, to refuse to employ them for the same reason, to pass them over for promotion for the same reason. Farron did not want it to be unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

1. Perhaps he thought that same sex marriage was being rushed through without being properly considered?

2. Perhaps he thought that making it illegal to refuse to make a cake with a pro ssm message would be silly?

[jakswan]

I’m afraid I don’t trust your crystal ball on Farron’s future political career.

Likewise.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

1. Perhaps he thought that same sex marriage was being rushed through without being properly considered?

2. Perhaps he thought that making it illegal to refuse to make a cake with a pro ssm message would be silly?

Ashers cake case did not rear its head until 2015. The Equality Legislation went through in 2007 and Farron had a problem with it because as a Liberal, he wanted an amendment to protect freedom of expression and the amendment was rejected.

Peter Tatchell also thought the legal judgement against Ashers was incorrect on the basis of freedom of expression principles. But then again Prof D will probably accuse Tatchell of being homophobic and not fit for public office. <sigh>

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ashers-bakery-cakes-gay-marriage-discrimination-northern-ireland-a7377916.html

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Likewise.

Except I don't recall making a definite prediction about the future like you did. But if I did feel free to let me know which reply number that was.

I''l demonstrate: You said in reply # 178  "which is why he will never now attain high office." which is why I said in response that I don't trust your crystal ball.

He might attain high office, he might not - politics is a funny game.

[jakswan]

Jonathan Bartley calls himself a Christian. He is at liberty to call himself what he likes, presumably you think that he gave a good account of himself because he thinks that gay sex is not a sin, rather than any reasons that he may have given?

Ooops, forgot to post link.

https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-The-Tim-Farron-affair-Are-evangelicals-no-longer-welcome-in-politics-David-Robertson-Jonathan-Bartley

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Ooops, forgot to post link.

https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-The-Tim-Farron-affair-Are-evangelicals-no-longer-welcome-in-politics-David-Robertson-Jonathan-Bartley

Thanks, this looks interesting 

[jakswan]

But then again Prof D will probably accuse Tatchell of being homophobic and not fit for public office. <sigh>

He might, he might argue that he thinks Tatchell wrong to think the way he does on the Ashers case but that doesn't make him homophobic.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Ashers cake case did not rear its head until 2015. The Equality Legislation went through in 2007 and Farron had a problem with it because as a Liberal, he wanted an amendment to protect freedom of expression and the amendment was rejected.

Peter Tatchell also thought the legal judgement against Ashers was incorrect on the basis of freedom of expression principles. But then again Prof D will probably accuse Tatchell of being homophobic and not fit for public office. <sigh>

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ashers-bakery-cakes-gay-marriage-discrimination-northern-ireland-a7377916.html

I appreciate that, I was just putting on the style a bit 

FWIW I would not have a problem with making a cake with a pro ssm message on it, but I would object to being asked to make a cake with a "Abortion is a womans right to choose" message. Both are political statements yet thanks to what IMHO is a badly constructed law, it is illegal to refuse the former, yet legal to refuse the latter.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

He might, he might argue that he thinks Tatchell wrong to think the way he does on the Ashers case but that doesn't make him homophobic.

Actually the point I was trying to make was that I think calling someone homophobic or racist or sexist is a very subjective assessment so the terms have become increasingly meaningless and is a short-cut for lazy people to avoid exercising their brain cells to make an argument.

I would be more than happy for Prof D to call me homophobic, racist and sexist every day of the week on here - if he could be bothered - that's how meaningless I think the labels are. But as a liberal I am happy for other people to feel the labels mean something.