What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
This is the danger of establishing No Platform as a principle. The right solution for awful views is to expose and challenge them. Once people get in a habit of No Platforming those whose views they disagree with it is easy to adopt that with mainstream and respectable views they disagree with.
Comment is free was a very good principle. Shame the Guardian has long not believed in it.
But she wasn't "no platformed" by the Guardian, was she?
I don't understand the fuss about 0.7% foreign aid. The government doesn't care about people in this country so its hardly a surprise that the same is true about foreigners.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
This is the danger of establishing No Platform as a principle. The right solution for awful views is to expose and challenge them. Once people get in a habit of No Platforming those whose views they disagree with it is easy to adopt that with mainstream and respectable views they disagree with.
Comment is free was a very good principle. Shame the Guardian has long not believed in it.
But she wasn't "no platformed" by the Guardian, was she?
She was bullied into leaving her job.
Was she bullied into leaving her job, or was she belittled for her opinions?
Because that belittling... well, that's free speech too.
You can't say: free speech for those espousing radical ideas! But: no to free speech for those being rude about those radical ideas!
I agree and very much prefer the rather more robust American line on this than our overly sensitive approach in this country. We have been far too keen or at least willing to tolerate politicians wanting to curb "hate speech", that is opinions that we don't agree with. We should allow them to speak and then tear these ideas apart. Its much healthier for our democracy.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
This is the danger of establishing No Platform as a principle. The right solution for awful views is to expose and challenge them. Once people get in a habit of No Platforming those whose views they disagree with it is easy to adopt that with mainstream and respectable views they disagree with.
Comment is free was a very good principle. Shame the Guardian has long not believed in it.
But she wasn't "no platformed" by the Guardian, was she?
Yes, it's clearly worrying that she was abused for her opinions, but she wasn't prevented from publishing. I've long stopped reading her because she seemed to be tiresomely trenchant in all directions, and I think that although we should be free to express provocative opinions they will inevitably prompt challenge. Abusive social media is clearly bullying, is a letter from colleagues (even 338 of them) disagreeing with her in the same category?
More generally, should we draw the line at some opinions? She criticises the Guardian for publishing a sermon by Osama Bin Laden - clearly a terrorist, but I don't mind reading a piece to find out what makes people like him tick. What about people who are clearly mistaken (Flat Earthers?), or people who use the article to stir up hatred (should they publish Nazis?). If we argue that they have a duty to publish absolutely anything, that's at least consistent, but otherwise we enter the more difficult realm of discussing what's a minimally acceptable view.
When you appease a totalitarian mob you empower them.That mob ends up not just trying to censor people but books,films and music.What the Guardian story exposes is how many careerist virtue signallers there are in journalism.Doubtless many of the Guardian journalists will claim publicly they believe in freedom of speech but hide that they would not be prepared to risk their own career to stand up to a censoring mob. The mainstream TV media are depressingly filled with the same types. The respective BBC sackings of Carol Thatcher and Danny Baker over off the cuff phrases which some regard as racist but others do not was totalitarian and yet not a single colleague stood up for them.In fact Jo Brand and Adrian Chiles got Carol Thatcher.sacked.Interesting to note though that when Jo Brand made an offensive joke about wanting to throw acid into (by innuendo) Nigel Farage's face Brand did not lose her BBC job doubtless because Farage & UKIP do not tick the victim tick box of the educated elites
I have posted repeated stories of how things are dealt with in Northern France. Tents and sleeping bags ripped apart with knives, personal possessions "seized", bus trips to nowhere, no food, shelter, support of any kind and a ban now on filming these atrocities all carried out not by gangs of right wing racists but by the police with the authority of the State.
None of this makes these posters right but jeez, people in this country have no idea how bad things can be. It is hardly surprising that those people in northern France are willing to risk their lives to get here. 2 days before she left my daughter attended a vigil for someone she knew who had died trying to get to this country. Their boat's engine had failed and they had tried to swim back to shore. He didn't make it.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
Indeed, as is pointing out their total lack of self-awareness, blantant hypocracy, and their famous racist cartoon depiction of the same woman they are now critisising.
Peston’s head is going explode when he sees some polling about whether overseas aid should be prioritised over domestic spending, when a million people have lost their jobs this year.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
This is the danger of establishing No Platform as a principle. The right solution for awful views is to expose and challenge them. Once people get in a habit of No Platforming those whose views they disagree with it is easy to adopt that with mainstream and respectable views they disagree with.
Comment is free was a very good principle. Shame the Guardian has long not believed in it.
But she wasn't "no platformed" by the Guardian, was she?
She was bullied into leaving her job.
Was she bullied into leaving her job, or was she belittled for her opinions?
Because that belittling... well, that's free speech too.
You can't say: free speech for those espousing radical ideas! But: no to free speech for those being rude about those radical ideas!
She can express her views. And those disagreeing can express their views. But the latter - especially on the trans issue - but not limited to that, go further. They don’t simply disagree but try and stop those with a different view from expressing it anywhere and they attack in very personal and offensive terms and in some cases there are threats of violence rather than engage with the arguments or concerns or try to come to some compromise. See this, for instance - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suzanne-moore-defended-my-views-on-sex-and-identity-now-its-my-turn-to-stand-up-for-her-xp3ztr5g9
And you know what, it feels to many women awfully like bullying of women.
So no - disagreement is free speech. Threats and hounding people out of their jobs are not.
The answer, surely, is that a proportion of his backbenchers and a bigger proportion of Tory members get highly agitated about it - now they (almost) have their Brexit, they only otherwise have HS2 to worry about - and, given the shedload of bad news about to be announced, Boris is trying to cling to at least some of his instinct for telling his audience what it wants to hear?
Meanwhile global daily cases keeps growing towards 600k/day with death rates steady as a total, but the story is entirely western world based with the impact on the rest of the world ignored. If not globally resolved it will keep coming back despite vacation as the virus mutates.
Peston’s head is going explode when he sees some polling about whether overseas aid should be prioritised over domestic spending, when a million people have lost their jobs this year.
(CNN)- Joe Biden has already kept his first promise -- his approach to the presidency will be a top-to-bottom repudiation of the behavior, policies and obsessions of President Donald Trump.
The President-elect is building his administration on old-fashioned notions that facts matter, that commanders-in-chief must project stability, that Cabinet officials need experience and expertise, that a fractured nation is governable and that the world wants the US to lead.
In restoring a more conventional version of the presidency, Biden is using his mandate to counter the political forces that led to Trump's rise and which still delivered more than 73 million votes to the President, albeit in a losing cause.
His Washington restoration is not without risk, and is already coming into conflict with Trump's blend of nihilistic conservatism that is likely to dictate the Republican Party's strategy even when he has left the Oval Office. Biden laid out his bet in its most tangible form yet Tuesday as he unveiled his national security and foreign policy team, who fanned out behind him on stage, masked and ready for action, like a SWAT team of dark-suited technocrats riding to the rescue.
"Let's begin the work to heal and unite America and the world," Biden said.
Indeed, as is pointing out their total lack of self-awareness, blantant hypocracy, and their famous racist cartoon depiction of the same woman they are now critisising.
I can remember when you wanted her flown back from Nairobi in Extraordinary Rendition Class in a C-130.
Red meat for (lazy stereotype of) the Red Wall. If the government was concerned about the money, they'd he better off redefining what does and doesn't count.
We'll ignore (for now) what it says in the Precious Manifesto.
"'It's disgraceful and un-British': Tory MP Sir Charles Walker rages at police as they bundle spread-eagled elderly woman into a van during peaceful 'anti-lockdown' protest outside Parliament"
"The massive domestic impact of the global pandemic" would probably answer Peston's question. It does annoy when commentators pose deliberately stupid questions they think are provocative.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Frankly, given some of the columnists and others the Guardian has seen fit to print over the years - Seamus Milne, for instance, or various Islamist sympathisers or Steve Bell - she’s better off out of it. It long ago turned its back on the “Comment is free, facts are sacred” mantra.
Feminists - like Jews - are realising that they are only valued by some parts of the illiberal Left for as long as they are a useful victim. When that stops being the case - either because some other more “deserving victim group” comes along or because they speak for themselves and don’t (the horror!) agree with whatever received opinion thinks - they get ditched and turned on. Both Left and Right fall all too easily into a “Women: know your place” mindset.
Morning everybody.
You're not feeling much happier this morning, then Ms Cyclefree! Are you over the fall I skim read about as I glanced through Pb?
No. Bloody awful fall. Not one of those where you stumble and know that you’re falling falls but one of those “one minute you’re upright the next you’d landed flat on your back, hit your head” falls. Whole of left side is painful.
Miracle that didn’t break anything.
Plus no sleep.
Whinge whinge - sorry. Plus have to steel myself for daughter realising that all her careful menu planning and Xmas quiz writing is for nothing while Sunak stands up in the Commons and says - according to the Today programme - “No-one should be left without hope or opportunity”.
Er, what the actual fuck do you think your government is doing to the hospitality sector, you short-arsed berk?!
Sunak is a classic case of "too much too soon."
And if Johnson fell under a bus this morning, Sunak would get the top job by acclamation.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
I have posted repeated stories of how things are dealt with in Northern France. Tents and sleeping bags ripped apart with knives, personal possessions "seized", bus trips to nowhere, no food, shelter, support of any kind and a ban now on filming these atrocities all carried out not by gangs of right wing racists but by the police with the authority of the State.
None of this makes these posters right but jeez, people in this country have no idea how bad things can be. It is hardly surprising that those people in northern France are willing to risk their lives to get here. 2 days before she left my daughter attended a vigil for someone she knew who had died trying to get to this country. Their boat's engine had failed and they had tried to swim back to shore. He didn't make it.
I'm really not a fan of this kind of post. It almost reads as an argument against any kind of improvement. Someone identifies a specific problem, in a sober and level-headed way. And they are met with tales of "oh but in this other place it's much much worse!" Such comparisons are useful -- necessary even -- if you're responding to someone's overblown rhetoric. If Dunt was saying "OMG UKGOV ARE FASCISTS!!!1!" then it would be really quite right to say "no, and for comparison look how much worse it is in France and not even that is fascism". Making the accusation look smaller is entirely right what the accusation is too big.
But this time the accusation looks really quite sane, which means diminishing it achieves... what?
We should aspire to have a government that succeeds on our terms, not to simply measure ourselves against someone worse. It's not enough to be better than something bad; that way complacency lies. We ought to be making ourselves better for our own sake.
(CNN)- Joe Biden has already kept his first promise -- his approach to the presidency will be a top-to-bottom repudiation of the behavior, policies and obsessions of President Donald Trump.
The President-elect is building his administration on old-fashioned notions that facts matter, that commanders-in-chief must project stability, that Cabinet officials need experience and expertise, that a fractured nation is governable and that the world wants the US to lead.
In restoring a more conventional version of the presidency, Biden is using his mandate to counter the political forces that led to Trump's rise and which still delivered more than 73 million votes to the President, albeit in a losing cause.
His Washington restoration is not without risk, and is already coming into conflict with Trump's blend of nihilistic conservatism that is likely to dictate the Republican Party's strategy even when he has left the Oval Office. Biden laid out his bet in its most tangible form yet Tuesday as he unveiled his national security and foreign policy team, who fanned out behind him on stage, masked and ready for action, like a SWAT team of dark-suited technocrats riding to the rescue.
"Let's begin the work to heal and unite America and the world," Biden said.
Thank God this nightmare is coming to an end, at least for four years.
"'It's disgraceful and un-British': Tory MP Sir Charles Walker rages at police as they bundle spread-eagled elderly woman into a van during peaceful 'anti-lockdown' protest outside Parliament"
I love it when right wing people suddenly realise that the police aren't always very nice to demonstrators. Usually the same people calling for the police to show no mercy to BLM protesters etc.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
This is the danger of establishing No Platform as a principle. The right solution for awful views is to expose and challenge them. Once people get in a habit of No Platforming those whose views they disagree with it is easy to adopt that with mainstream and respectable views they disagree with.
Comment is free was a very good principle. Shame the Guardian has long not believed in it.
But she wasn't "no platformed" by the Guardian, was she?
She was bullied into leaving her job.
Was she bullied into leaving her job, or was she belittled for her opinions?
Because that belittling... well, that's free speech too.
You can't say: free speech for those espousing radical ideas! But: no to free speech for those being rude about those radical ideas!
She can express her views. And those disagreeing can express their views. But the latter - especially on the trans issue - but not limited to that, go further. They don’t simply disagree but try and stop those with a different view from expressing it anywhere and they attack in very personal and offensive terms and in some cases there are threats of violence rather than engage with the arguments or concerns or try to come to some compromise. See this, for instance - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suzanne-moore-defended-my-views-on-sex-and-identity-now-its-my-turn-to-stand-up-for-her-xp3ztr5g9
And you know what, it feels to many women awfully like bullying of women.
So no - disagreement is free speech. Threats and hounding people out of their jobs are not.
I think we'd pretty much all agree with that - there's no excuse for hounding people whatever their views. But there are nuances here, as you suggest. I've not followed it very closely (though I've read the article you link to, as well as Suzanne's), but my understanding is that she didn't resign from a position at the Guardian (she's a freelancer), but decided to stop writing for it specifically because 338 colleagues had objected to articles expressing her views on trans people being published.
They felt it created a hostile environment for trans colleagues; but she felt that their views created a hostile environment for her - and with the horrible direct abuse she was getting, it must have felt especially bad. However, they didn't name her and the newspaper didn't comply with their request or take down her past columns. I'm not sure what the paper is supposed to have done wrong. But perhaps I'm missing something.
Many sympathies for the many trials you're going through - I do hope the horizon brightens for you and your family as soon as possible.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
"'It's disgraceful and un-British': Tory MP Sir Charles Walker rages at police as they bundle spread-eagled elderly woman into a van during peaceful 'anti-lockdown' protest outside Parliament"
I love it when right wing people suddenly realise that the police aren't always very nice to demonstrators. Usually the same people calling for the police to show no mercy to BLM protesters etc.
You have to love the expression "it's un-British". No it isn't, old chap. No it isn't.
Do we reckon Boris has the numbers to get 0.7% dropped to 0.5%? ConHome have their doubts, which surprises me a little, but they are a much better judge of Tory MPs than I am.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
No votes in opposing a brexit deal, it will be brilliant to those who have over promised, it will be what it is for everybody who actually have to live with it, but delaying is in nobodies playbook.
Do we reckon Boris has the numbers to get 0.7% dropped to 0.5%? ConHome have their doubts, which surprises me a little, but they are a much better judge of Tory MPs than I am.
And the very first post below that article exemplifies the audience the clown is pitching to:
"Yes to 0.5%. No HSR2. Cut most of the Green nonsense that will impoverish us and turn the lights out. Protect those that need protecting and not the tens of millions who don't and are being paid by the govt to stay at home. Stop the nonsensical lockdown in low infection areas costing us £2 billion a day. Stop hosing everywhere with money much of which isn't reaching its targets. Stop this nonsense with IR35."
"'It's disgraceful and un-British': Tory MP Sir Charles Walker rages at police as they bundle spread-eagled elderly woman into a van during peaceful 'anti-lockdown' protest outside Parliament"
I love it when right wing people suddenly realise that the police aren't always very nice to demonstrators. Usually the same people calling for the police to show no mercy to BLM protesters etc.
You have to love the expression "it's un-British". No it isn't, old chap. No it isn't.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
This is the danger of establishing No Platform as a principle. The right solution for awful views is to expose and challenge them. Once people get in a habit of No Platforming those whose views they disagree with it is easy to adopt that with mainstream and respectable views they disagree with.
Comment is free was a very good principle. Shame the Guardian has long not believed in it.
“No Platform” is not a principle. Unless putting your fingers in your ears shouting “La La I can’t hear you” is to be dignified with the word “principle”.
People think it is. People literally state that others should not be allowed to offend them.
Some are slightly more subtle and talk about how people are entitled to their views but should not express them in capacity X or platform Y, with the practical effect that they shouldn't say anything at all.
There are complexities, but far better to err on the side of being permissive on free speech.
"'It's disgraceful and un-British': Tory MP Sir Charles Walker rages at police as they bundle spread-eagled elderly woman into a van during peaceful 'anti-lockdown' protest outside Parliament"
I love it when right wing people suddenly realise that the police aren't always very nice to demonstrators. Usually the same people calling for the police to show no mercy to BLM protesters etc.
So? I've just discovered I need to spend 2000 quid on a new oil tank - I'll be changing my spending accordingly to pay for this. Times change.
That's true, and it's an easy target as I doubt it will be that unpopular. Though I also doubt that the people most keen on doing it were just now persuaded by it.
"The massive domestic impact of the global pandemic" would probably answer Peston's question. It does annoy when commentators pose deliberately stupid questions they think are provocative.
It's a silly technique. And theres nothing magical about 0.7%. I'm fine with the commitment being kept at that level and not reduced, if done right its smart to do it, but treating even a reduction as a moral outrage may be a tough sell when many many others dont do it.
Do we reckon Boris has the numbers to get 0.7% dropped to 0.5%? ConHome have their doubts, which surprises me a little, but they are a much better judge of Tory MPs than I am.
And the very first post below that article exemplifies the audience the clown is pitching to:
"Yes to 0.5%. No HSR2. Cut most of the Green nonsense that will impoverish us and turn the lights out. Protect those that need protecting and not the tens of millions who don't and are being paid by the govt to stay at home. Stop the nonsensical lockdown in low infection areas costing us £2 billion a day. Stop hosing everywhere with money much of which isn't reaching its targets. Stop this nonsense with IR35."
"The massive domestic impact of the global pandemic" would probably answer Peston's question. It does annoy when commentators pose deliberately stupid questions they think are provocative.
Well, the target is a percentage of GDP, so the absolute quantity of money to meet the target automatically declines in response to this year's economic difficulties.
It seems pretty obvious that Conservative critics of the aid budget correlate very strongly with extremist Brexiters, so this would seem like a tactical move to butter those people up to make it easier to win their support for a deal that will necessarily involve some degree of compromise.
The commitment to maintain the (legal) 0.7 of GNI to overseas aid was absolutely clear in the 2019 manifesto. Most PB Tories on here, especially one particularly frequent contributor, insist that all manifesto commitments must be implemented, with especial reference to controlling borders/money/laws etc.
Can somebody explain what's different about the 0.7 commitment (without using the pandemic as cover, as the pandemic could be used to override some of the Brexit commitments)?
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
This is the danger of establishing No Platform as a principle. The right solution for awful views is to expose and challenge them. Once people get in a habit of No Platforming those whose views they disagree with it is easy to adopt that with mainstream and respectable views they disagree with.
Comment is free was a very good principle. Shame the Guardian has long not believed in it.
But she wasn't "no platformed" by the Guardian, was she?
She was bullied into leaving her job.
She didn't have a job. She was a freelance.
You sound like one of those companies that treats those who effectively work for it like crap and provide them no support whatsoever because they are contractors.
Fair enough if companies dont want to use the services of a freelancer, though if it's to avoid furore of angry people some of whom behave inappropriately then there might still be an issue in how they choose to discard the person even if they are not a contracted employee.
The commitment to maintain the (legal) 0.7 of GNI to overseas aid was absolutely clear in the 2019 manifesto. Most PB Tories on here, especially one particularly frequent contributor, insist that all manifesto commitments must be implemented, with especial reference to controlling borders/money/laws etc.
Can somebody explain what's different about the 0.7 commitment (without using the pandemic as cover, as the pandemic could be used to override some of the Brexit commitments)?
And the whole idea of it being a percentage in the first place is that, if the economy gets into trouble, the amount spent on aid reduces commensurately. And grows if we ourselves grow.
I see Betfair haven't settled up on USA overnight.
One day I shall wake up to some money in my BF account.
Has anyone contacted BF over this? Their website is no help.
Whenever they settle it will be illogical and out of line with their own rules.
I'll be closing my account once they have paid up. I can use Betdaq when I need an exchange.
Do they know the level of discontent? Don`t they care? Unbelievable.
Flutter Entertainment also owns PP and they owe me money as well (on state markets). Don`t know what their excuse is other than being consistent with the exchange in their stable.
Do we reckon Boris has the numbers to get 0.7% dropped to 0.5%? ConHome have their doubts, which surprises me a little, but they are a much better judge of Tory MPs than I am.
And the very first post below that article exemplifies the audience the clown is pitching to:
"Yes to 0.5%. No HSR2. Cut most of the Green nonsense that will impoverish us and turn the lights out. Protect those that need protecting and not the tens of millions who don't and are being paid by the govt to stay at home. Stop the nonsensical lockdown in low infection areas costing us £2 billion a day. Stop hosing everywhere with money much of which isn't reaching its targets. Stop this nonsense with IR35."
Government does what its voters want - shock
As just one item out of that long list, and still an unannounced unagreed rumour, there is an element of shock, tbf. The rest of that list is all proceeding.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
What was actually in a deal, at any stage, was never a great importance to either side. Boris and co essentially claimed May's deal was not even Brexit, not that it was just a crap Brexit, before changing their minds and voting for it after they eventually realised they were wrong. Lucky for him it still didn't get through.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Labour thinks any deal, however awful, is better than no deal, and given the timescale there is no chance to improve any deal that is presented. Secondly, if Labour opposes a deal it is absolutely certain that the Tories and their press will headline on 'Labour trying to stop Brexit again'. So it makes sense to me.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
As an addition - The Guardian like the New York Times is clearly becoming a poorer quality newspaper. Maybe that was inevitable. Perhaps the days when we expect newspapers to be at the front of highbrow news and commentary are largely over.
Go to your local WH Smith. There are hundreds of good quality magazines on display. With rolling 24 TV news that may be where to look.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Labour thinks any deal, however awful, is better than no deal, and given the timescale there is no chance to improve any deal that is presented. Secondly, if Labour opposes a deal it is absolutely certain that the Tories and their press will headline on 'Labour trying to stop Brexit again'. So it makes sense to me.
A third reason is Starmer remembers last time when Labour said it could not decide whether to back a deal until after it had been negotiated.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Labour thinks any deal, however awful, is better than no deal, and given the timescale there is no chance to improve any deal that is presented. Secondly, if Labour opposes a deal it is absolutely certain that the Tories and their press will headline on 'Labour trying to stop Brexit again'. So it makes sense to me.
If you think that ANY deal is better than no deal, then all you are doing is projecting a view that we shouldn`t be leaving the EU in the first place (which I agree with, but that`s beside the point).
Putting it another way, if the referendum made it clear that we WILL be entering into a deal with the EU no matter what the details are because there is NO WAY we leave with no deal then nobody with a single brain cell would have voted to leave because it is obvious that we would be stuffed. Yet this is where we are. The premise renders the referendum a sham.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
What was actually in a deal, at any stage, was never a great importance to either side. Boris and co essentially claimed May's deal was not even Brexit, not that it was just a crap Brexit, before changing their minds and voting for it after they eventually realised they were wrong. Lucky for him it still didn't get through.
I said at the time of MV3 that Boris was wrong to back May's deal.
I'm glad that the useful idiots of the opposition benches helped us get a better deal, a better PM and a better Parliament with a better majority. Couldn't have been done without them marching through the lobbies with the likes of Baker etc
As an addition - The Guardian like the New York Times is clearly becoming a poorer quality newspaper. Maybe that was inevitable. Perhaps the days when we expect newspapers to be at the front of highbrow news and commentary are largely over.
Go to your local WH Smith. There are hundreds of good quality magazines on display. With rolling 24 TV news that may be where to look.
What's prompted you to say that? If it's the Steve Bell cartoon, I've news for you: he's been there for donkeys' years, and he's always been an idiot.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
So the Grauniad is in your eyes "the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub"?
I see Betfair haven't settled up on USA overnight.
One day I shall wake up to some money in my BF account.
Has anyone contacted BF over this? Their website is no help.
Whenever they settle it will be illogical and out of line with their own rules.
I'll be closing my account once they have paid up. I can use Betdaq when I need an exchange.
I'm a bit lost as to why everyone on here is so upset about this one. They are being slow to pay out, I don't think that's particularly unusual? Betdaq have very few politics markets and as far as I can tell - very limited liquidity in their markets.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Labour thinks any deal, however awful, is better than no deal, and given the timescale there is no chance to improve any deal that is presented. Secondly, if Labour opposes a deal it is absolutely certain that the Tories and their press will headline on 'Labour trying to stop Brexit again'. So it makes sense to me.
It doesn`t make sense. Those who want to leave the EU no way want a crap deal with the EU. I sincerely hope that Johnson does not put such a deal before the house.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
Absolutely. It's like defending Johnson saying racist stuff because he was "joking". We know Johnson is a fan of having his cake and eating it, but Johnson is a politician not a shit comedian like "Al Murray, the pub landlord". If Johnson just stuck to being a shit comedian it would be OK.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Not really Philip. I'm talking about the law. Offending or bullying your colleagues is something else and may be grounds for dismissal.
"Carelessly giving offence" and then stop doing so when someone brings your attention to it, isn't something that would lead to dismissal in the real world. Attending an awareness training course maybe at the most.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
So the Grauniad is in your eyes "the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub"?
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
Absolutely. It's like defending Johnson saying racist stuff because he was "joking". We know Johnson is a fan of having his cake and eating it, but Johnson is a politician not a shit comedian like "Al Murray, the pub landlord". If Johnson just stuck to being a shit comedian it would be OK.
Johnson doesn't say racist stuff, I think you've mixed him up with the party opposite that was just joined the British National Party in being the only parties ever to have found guilty of that under the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I see Betfair haven't settled up on USA overnight.
One day I shall wake up to some money in my BF account.
Has anyone contacted BF over this? Their website is no help.
Whenever they settle it will be illogical and out of line with their own rules.
I'll be closing my account once they have paid up. I can use Betdaq when I need an exchange.
I'm a bit lost as to why everyone on here is so upset about this one. They are being slow to pay out, I don't think that's particularly unusual? Betdaq have very few politics markets and as far as I can tell - very limited liquidity in their markets.
Exactly. It's not as if we are losing tons in interest by having to wait a week or two for our winnings.
We ought to welcome what is a rare opportunity to get pretty much free money from those who either believe Trump can pull off a miracle, or have left their long odds money unmatched on the table and forgotten about it.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
So the Grauniad is in your eyes "the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub"?
Steve Bell sure is.
Well yes and the Grauniad have chosen to keep him employed for decades. But I thought Ian might hold them in higher regard?
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
So the Grauniad is in your eyes "the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub"?
Steve Bell sure is.
Well yes and the Grauniad have chosen to keep him employed for decades. But I thought Ian might hold them in higher regard?
Yes, though I wouldn't judge other Guardian writers on their bosses' choice of cartoonists. I've worked in companies where some of my co-workers were fools, and I wouldn't like someone to judge me for their behaviour.
I see Betfair haven't settled up on USA overnight.
One day I shall wake up to some money in my BF account.
Has anyone contacted BF over this? Their website is no help.
Whenever they settle it will be illogical and out of line with their own rules.
I'll be closing my account once they have paid up. I can use Betdaq when I need an exchange.
I'm a bit lost as to why everyone on here is so upset about this one. They are being slow to pay out, I don't think that's particularly unusual? Betdaq have very few politics markets and as far as I can tell - very limited liquidity in their markets.
It always takes ages to settle US election markets, as the Americans take weeks to certify the results. Fingers crossed they settle when Biden has 270 EC votes certified.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Not really Philip. I'm talking about the law. Offending or bullying your colleagues is something else and may be grounds for dismissal.
"Carelessly giving offence" and then stop doing so when someone brings your attention to it, isn't something that would lead to dismissal in the real world. Attending an awareness training course maybe at the most.
This is just a nasty vindictive witch-hunt.
I haven't read the report. But wasn't it three different departments?
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
This is the danger of establishing No Platform as a principle. The right solution for awful views is to expose and challenge them. Once people get in a habit of No Platforming those whose views they disagree with it is easy to adopt that with mainstream and respectable views they disagree with.
Comment is free was a very good principle. Shame the Guardian has long not believed in it.
But she wasn't "no platformed" by the Guardian, was she?
She was bullied into leaving her job.
Was she bullied into leaving her job, or was she belittled for her opinions?
Because that belittling... well, that's free speech too.
You can't say: free speech for those espousing radical ideas! But: no to free speech for those being rude about those radical ideas!
She can express her views. And those disagreeing can express their views. But the latter - especially on the trans issue - but not limited to that, go further. They don’t simply disagree but try and stop those with a different view from expressing it anywhere and they attack in very personal and offensive terms and in some cases there are threats of violence rather than engage with the arguments or concerns or try to come to some compromise. See this, for instance - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suzanne-moore-defended-my-views-on-sex-and-identity-now-its-my-turn-to-stand-up-for-her-xp3ztr5g9
And you know what, it feels to many women awfully like bullying of women.
So no - disagreement is free speech. Threats and hounding people out of their jobs are not.
I think we'd pretty much all agree with that - there's no excuse for hounding people whatever their views. But there are nuances here, as you suggest. I've not followed it very closely (though I've read the article you link to, as well as Suzanne's), but my understanding is that she didn't resign from a position at the Guardian (she's a freelancer), but decided to stop writing for it specifically because 338 colleagues had objected to articles expressing her views on trans people being published.
They felt it created a hostile environment for trans colleagues; but she felt that their views created a hostile environment for her - and with the horrible direct abuse she was getting, it must have felt especially bad. However, they didn't name her and the newspaper didn't comply with their request or take down her past columns. I'm not sure what the paper is supposed to have done wrong. But perhaps I'm missing something.
Many sympathies for the many trials you're going through - I do hope the horizon brightens for you and your family as soon as possible.
A good summation. The names are interesting. Mainly women several working in the US. A few you'll recognise but very few. It seems the Guardian were happy to publish her articles but after receiving thousands of complaints 338 members of staff disagreed with the line she was taking and complained to the editor
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Not really Philip. I'm talking about the law. Offending or bullying your colleagues is something else and may be grounds for dismissal.
"Carelessly giving offence" and then stop doing so when someone brings your attention to it, isn't something that would lead to dismissal in the real world. Attending an awareness training course maybe at the most.
This is just a nasty vindictive witch-hunt.
I haven't read the report. But wasn't it three different departments?
The Guardian and the rest of the pack scenting blood and wanting a scalp were saying no more than it was "carelessly giving offence" as that headline states.
Pathetic! I'm pretty sure if the report claimed she was deliberately bullying then the hypocrites like the Grauniad seeking to tear down someone they have deliberately tried to offend in racist imagery would have quoted that.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
So the Grauniad is in your eyes "the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub"?
Steve Bell sure is.
Well yes and the Grauniad have chosen to keep him employed for decades. But I thought Ian might hold them in higher regard?
Yes, though I wouldn't judge other Guardian writers on their bosses' choice of cartoonists. I've worked in companies where some of my co-workers were fools, and I wouldn't like someone to judge me for their behaviour.
Except the image quoted was named as "Editorial" ie it reflected the paper's own editorial line, it was not simply the opinion of a columnist. The paper's own editorial line was also to publish a hideously racist cartoon by Bell too. So yes I'm happy to judge their editorial line one against the other.
I see Betfair haven't settled up on USA overnight.
One day I shall wake up to some money in my BF account.
Has anyone contacted BF over this? Their website is no help.
Whenever they settle it will be illogical and out of line with their own rules.
I'll be closing my account once they have paid up. I can use Betdaq when I need an exchange.
I'm a bit lost as to why everyone on here is so upset about this one. They are being slow to pay out, I don't think that's particularly unusual? Betdaq have very few politics markets and as far as I can tell - very limited liquidity in their markets.
They defined the rules for settlement and haven't stuck to them. Moreover, they have been inconsistent, settling some markets in accordance with those rules but not others.
The rules made perfect sense, especially as it was always likely there would be legal issues and possible complications in respect of matters like faithless electors. By refusing to settle in accordance with them they are retaining huge amounts of punter money. They are also setting a bad precedent.
Punters not only need clear rules, they need to have confidence the bookie will settle in good faith. This is worst example of a bookie not doing so that I have ever come across.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Labour thinks any deal, however awful, is better than no deal, and given the timescale there is no chance to improve any deal that is presented. Secondly, if Labour opposes a deal it is absolutely certain that the Tories and their press will headline on 'Labour trying to stop Brexit again'. So it makes sense to me.
It doesn`t make sense. Those who want to leave the EU no way want a crap deal with the EU. I sincerely hope that Johnson does not put such a deal before the house.
No deal would be catastrophic, particularly on the back of the post pandemic economic fall out.
Just comfort yourself that Labour's bad deal which probably agrees a capitulation on fishing and state aid would have been so much better, had the Conservative Party had any involvement.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
So the Grauniad is in your eyes "the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub"?
Steve Bell sure is.
Well yes and the Grauniad have chosen to keep him employed for decades. But I thought Ian might hold them in higher regard?
Yes, though I wouldn't judge other Guardian writers on their bosses' choice of cartoonists. I've worked in companies where some of my co-workers were fools, and I wouldn't like someone to judge me for their behaviour.
Except the image quoted was named as "Editorial" ie it reflected the paper's own editorial line, it was not simply the opinion of a columnist. The paper's own editorial line was also to publish a hideously racist cartoon by Bell too. So yes I'm happy to judge their editorial line one against the other.
Just whilst we're on the subject, I haven't looked at the cartoon other than the screen grab below. Seems to be portraying Patel as a bull. Is that racist? Something to do with Hinuism? Or bull-in-a-china-shop?
This is what I don't like about Bell. Not only is he not funny, there's too often situations where he seems to be deliberately sailing close to the wind, or something can be taken as one of two things. Dog whistles vs eye of the beholder stuff. Seems a bit pointlessly provocative at best.
So Labour will back a deal. They don`t even know the details! Whatever deal is presented? They don`t want to know the degree to which UK has been shafted before they say they are going to vote for it?
I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Labour thinks any deal, however awful, is better than no deal, and given the timescale there is no chance to improve any deal that is presented. Secondly, if Labour opposes a deal it is absolutely certain that the Tories and their press will headline on 'Labour trying to stop Brexit again'. So it makes sense to me.
It doesn`t make sense. Those who want to leave the EU no way want a crap deal with the EU. I sincerely hope that Johnson does not put such a deal before the house.
Agreed.
Good deal > No deal > Bad deal.
The idea that any deal is better than no deal is nonsensical.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
So the Grauniad is in your eyes "the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub"?
Steve Bell sure is.
Well yes and the Grauniad have chosen to keep him employed for decades. But I thought Ian might hold them in higher regard?
Yes, though I wouldn't judge other Guardian writers on their bosses' choice of cartoonists. I've worked in companies where some of my co-workers were fools, and I wouldn't like someone to judge me for their behaviour.
Except the image quoted was named as "Editorial" ie it reflected the paper's own editorial line, it was not simply the opinion of a columnist. The paper's own editorial line was also to publish a hideously racist cartoon by Bell too. So yes I'm happy to judge their editorial line one against the other.
Just whilst we're on the subject, I haven't looked at the cartoon other than the screen grab below. Seems to be portraying Patel as a bull. Is that racist? Something to do with Hinuism? Or bull-in-a-china-shop?
This is what I don't like about Bell. Not only is he not funny, there's too often situations where he seems to be deliberately sailing close to the wind, or something can be taken as one of two things. Dog whistles vs eye of the beholder stuff. Seems a bit pointlessly provocative at best.
Cows are sacred to Hindus. I thought that was a well known fact?
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Not really Philip. I'm talking about the law. Offending or bullying your colleagues is something else and may be grounds for dismissal.
Indeed, and in this case we have 338 bullies ganging up on Suzanne Moore.
No we don't. 338 mainly backoffice staff wrote a letter to the editor which did not mention Moore (and is included in Moore's Unherd article). Moore doxxed some of the 338 on twitter and then (because it's twitter) she was abused. Moore then decided to stop writing for the Guardian.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
So the Grauniad is in your eyes "the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub"?
Steve Bell sure is.
Well yes and the Grauniad have chosen to keep him employed for decades. But I thought Ian might hold them in higher regard?
Yes, though I wouldn't judge other Guardian writers on their bosses' choice of cartoonists. I've worked in companies where some of my co-workers were fools, and I wouldn't like someone to judge me for their behaviour.
Except the image quoted was named as "Editorial" ie it reflected the paper's own editorial line, it was not simply the opinion of a columnist. The paper's own editorial line was also to publish a hideously racist cartoon by Bell too. So yes I'm happy to judge their editorial line one against the other.
Just whilst we're on the subject, I haven't looked at the cartoon other than the screen grab below. Seems to be portraying Patel as a bull. Is that racist? Something to do with Hinuism? Or bull-in-a-china-shop?
This is what I don't like about Bell. Not only is he not funny, there's too often situations where he seems to be deliberately sailing close to the wind, or something can be taken as one of two things. Dog whistles vs eye of the beholder stuff. Seems a bit pointlessly provocative at best.
Yes cows are sacred in Hinduism. To portray a Hindu as a cow is deliberately provocative and racist.
If you want to be deliberately provocative and racist then I will defend your right to free speech, while calling a spade a spade. Some magazines especially make a living by being deliberately provocative, like Charlie Hebdo in France or to a lesser extent Private Eye here.
But if you're deliberately provactive and racist in one breath then call for the head of someone you've been racially abusing because they were "carelessly giving offence" then that is rank hypocrisy.
Labour have little choice but to back the deal and hang it round Shagger's neck like the albatross it is. As the alternative - no deal - would be at least a little worse than whatever deal he agrees, its a question of how badly we lose not whether we lose at all.
If Labour voted against then it would have a Hard Time in the former red wall seats. However, voting for a deal that will sink whats left of industry in the red wall isn't going to be a vote winner either so portraying it as the "Boris Brexit" is critical. If as openly suggested by Nissan they shut their factory Labour need to show that the Tories willfully lied to everyone about an oven ready deal to make things better.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
Absolutely. It's like defending Johnson saying racist stuff because he was "joking". We know Johnson is a fan of having his cake and eating it, but Johnson is a politician not a shit comedian like "Al Murray, the pub landlord". If Johnson just stuck to being a shit comedian it would be OK.
Johnson doesn't say racist stuff, I think you've mixed him up with the party opposite that was just joined the British National Party in being the only parties ever to have found guilty of that under the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Of course Johnson's carefully crafted dog-whistles are mere satire.
Indeed, Labour's anti-Semitism is a stain on the party and the nation.
Conservatives are not prejudiced? I wouldn't want to slander any sitting Conservative MPs, but Terry Dicks say "hi" from beyond the grave.
Labour have little choice but to back the deal and hang it round Shagger's neck like the albatross it is. As the alternative - no deal - would be at least a little worse than whatever deal he agrees, its a question of how badly we lose not whether we lose at all.
If Labour voted against then it would have a Hard Time in the former red wall seats. However, voting for a deal that will sink whats left of industry in the red wall isn't going to be a vote winner either so portraying it as the "Boris Brexit" is critical. If as openly suggested by Nissan they shut their factory Labour need to show that the Tories willfully lied to everyone about an oven ready deal to make things better.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Expecting our elected representatives, and especially our ministers, to be a tad less offensive in their behaviour than the worst examples picked off the street or out of the pub, doesn't seem unreasonable, though.
Absolutely. It's like defending Johnson saying racist stuff because he was "joking". We know Johnson is a fan of having his cake and eating it, but Johnson is a politician not a shit comedian like "Al Murray, the pub landlord". If Johnson just stuck to being a shit comedian it would be OK.
Johnson doesn't say racist stuff, I think you've mixed him up with the party opposite that was just joined the British National Party in being the only parties ever to have found guilty of that under the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Of course Johnson's carefully crafted dog-whistles are mere satire.
Indeed, Labour's anti-Semitism is a stain on the party and the nation.
Conservatives are not prejudiced? I wouldn't want to slander any sitting Conservative MPs, but Terry Dicks say "hi" from beyond the grave.
I think most rational people can rightly understand the distinction between those being racist themselves and those who are satirising and mocking racists. Do you think racists should be beyond satire?
The Tories have expelled any racists for decades, while the Labour Party is still anguishing about what to do with antisemites. The fact you're needing to resort to naming a Tory who wasn't an MP at all this century just rather proves the point!
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
What is it with these 'activists', that they talk about kindness and inclusivity one minute, yet make death threats and rape threats the next?
As she says, the mainstream left have become so preoccupied with identity politics, that she now finds the Telegraph printing her columns while the Guardian staff wanted to get her fired.
Oh, and props to the Unherd editor who let an N-word go, when written by a white woman!
I'm sure she'll be more than happy plying her trade at the telegraph
Doesn’t it disturb you in any way that a left wing journalist can openly say she’s more comfortable and more accepted at one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers than she is at the Guardian?
Not at all. She's a freelance for the Guardian. She hasn't 'left' them. She can write for whoever chooses to give her a call. The Guardian has some fantastic journalists and some crap ones. I'm not really interested in who shares Ms Moore's political views. If the Telegraph wants to buy her articles good luck to both of them. I''m not a fan so I can't see myself breaching the paywall to get to either of them
And therein lies the problem.
The problem is not spotting a journalist scorned
For her views...which she is entitled to, and was trying to publish at a newspaper which claims ‘comment is free.’
Will be fun reading the Guardian editorialising about bullying though.
One mans 'free speech' is another's 'massively offensive'...
Well yeah. But if we believe in free speech we have to accept people being massively offensive.
Absolutely.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
Not really Philip. I'm talking about the law. Offending or bullying your colleagues is something else and may be grounds for dismissal.
Indeed, and in this case we have 338 bullies ganging up on Suzanne Moore.
No we don't. 338 mainly backoffice staff wrote a letter to the editor which did not mention Moore (and is included in Moore's Unherd article). Moore doxxed some of the 338 on twitter and then (because it's twitter) she was abused. Moore then decided to stop writing for the Guardian.
Moore didn’t “dox” anyone, she merely retweeted a letter that was already in the public domain.
Comments
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1331510544587776001
More generally, should we draw the line at some opinions? She criticises the Guardian for publishing a sermon by Osama Bin Laden - clearly a terrorist, but I don't mind reading a piece to find out what makes people like him tick. What about people who are clearly mistaken (Flat Earthers?), or people who use the article to stir up hatred (should they publish Nazis?). If we argue that they have a duty to publish absolutely anything, that's at least consistent, but otherwise we enter the more difficult realm of discussing what's a minimally acceptable view.
The mainstream TV media are depressingly filled with the same types.
The respective BBC sackings of Carol Thatcher and Danny Baker over off the cuff phrases which some regard as racist but others do not was totalitarian and yet not a single colleague stood up for them.In fact Jo Brand and Adrian Chiles got Carol Thatcher.sacked.Interesting to note though that when Jo Brand made an offensive joke about wanting to throw acid into (by innuendo) Nigel Farage's face Brand did not lose her BBC job doubtless because Farage & UKIP do not tick the victim tick box of the educated elites
None of this makes these posters right but jeez, people in this country have no idea how bad things can be. It is hardly surprising that those people in northern France are willing to risk their lives to get here. 2 days before she left my daughter attended a vigil for someone she knew who had died trying to get to this country. Their boat's engine had failed and they had tried to swim back to shore. He didn't make it.
And you know what, it feels to many women awfully like bullying of women.
So no - disagreement is free speech. Threats and hounding people out of their jobs are not.
Shocker
The President-elect is building his administration on old-fashioned notions that facts matter, that commanders-in-chief must project stability, that Cabinet officials need experience and expertise, that a fractured nation is governable and that the world wants the US to lead.
In restoring a more conventional version of the presidency, Biden is using his mandate to counter the political forces that led to Trump's rise and which still delivered more than 73 million votes to the President, albeit in a losing cause.
His Washington restoration is not without risk, and is already coming into conflict with Trump's blend of nihilistic conservatism that is likely to dictate the Republican Party's strategy even when he has left the Oval Office.
Biden laid out his bet in its most tangible form yet Tuesday as he unveiled his national security and foreign policy team, who fanned out behind him on stage, masked and ready for action, like a SWAT team of dark-suited technocrats riding to the rescue.
"Let's begin the work to heal and unite America and the world," Biden said.
We'll ignore (for now) what it says in the Precious Manifesto.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8983215/Tory-MP-rages-police-bundle-old-woman-van-protesting-outside-Parliament.html
It does annoy when commentators pose deliberately stupid questions they think are provocative.
Someone identifies a specific problem, in a sober and level-headed way. And they are met with tales of "oh but in this other place it's much much worse!"
Such comparisons are useful -- necessary even -- if you're responding to someone's overblown rhetoric. If Dunt was saying "OMG UKGOV ARE FASCISTS!!!1!" then it would be really quite right to say "no, and for comparison look how much worse it is in France and not even that is fascism". Making the accusation look smaller is entirely right what the accusation is too big.
But this time the accusation looks really quite sane, which means diminishing it achieves... what?
We should aspire to have a government that succeeds on our terms, not to simply measure ourselves against someone worse. It's not enough to be better than something bad; that way complacency lies. We ought to be making ourselves better for our own sake.
Has anyone contacted BF over this? Their website is no help.
They felt it created a hostile environment for trans colleagues; but she felt that their views created a hostile environment for her - and with the horrible direct abuse she was getting, it must have felt especially bad. However, they didn't name her and the newspaper didn't comply with their request or take down her past columns. I'm not sure what the paper is supposed to have done wrong. But perhaps I'm missing something.
Many sympathies for the many trials you're going through - I do hope the horizon brightens for you and your family as soon as possible.
No it isn't, old chap. No it isn't.
ConHome have their doubts, which surprises me a little, but they are a much better judge of Tory MPs than I am.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/11/there-is-more-at-stake-in-any-push-to-cut-the-0-7-target-than-the-future-of-our-aid-policy.html
Carmakers are particularly susceptible to pressure from Beijing"
https://www.ft.com/content/0387a039-944f-4de5-8d41-7e22b7600563
"Yes to 0.5%. No HSR2. Cut most of the Green nonsense that will impoverish us and turn the lights out. Protect those that need protecting and not the tens of millions who don't and are being paid by the govt to stay at home. Stop the nonsensical lockdown in low infection areas costing us £2 billion a day. Stop hosing everywhere with money much of which isn't reaching its targets. Stop this nonsense with IR35."
Some are slightly more subtle and talk about how people are entitled to their views but should not express them in capacity X or platform Y, with the practical effect that they shouldn't say anything at all.
There are complexities, but far better to err on the side of being permissive on free speech. Yes, I dont know what he was surprised by. That's true, and it's an easy target as I doubt it will be that unpopular. Though I also doubt that the people most keen on doing it were just now persuaded by it. It's a silly technique. And theres nothing magical about 0.7%. I'm fine with the commitment being kept at that level and not reduced, if done right its smart to do it, but treating even a reduction as a moral outrage may be a tough sell when many many others dont do it.
It seems pretty obvious that Conservative critics of the aid budget correlate very strongly with extremist Brexiters, so this would seem like a tactical move to butter those people up to make it easier to win their support for a deal that will necessarily involve some degree of compromise.
Can somebody explain what's different about the 0.7 commitment (without using the pandemic as cover, as the pandemic could be used to override some of the Brexit commitments)?
I'll be closing my account once they have paid up. I can use Betdaq when I need an exchange.
Fair enough if companies dont want to use the services of a freelancer, though if it's to avoid furore of angry people some of whom behave inappropriately then there might still be an issue in how they choose to discard the person even if they are not a contracted employee.
Flutter Entertainment also owns PP and they owe me money as well (on state markets). Don`t know what their excuse is other than being consistent with the exchange in their stable.
https://www.escoe.ac.uk/research/publications/
Re Betfair, I've no idea when they will settle but I expect it to be during the day because the big cheeses work 9-5.
But then don't bitch and whinge about Patel being "carelessly giving offence".
Not unless you want to be shown up for the total hypocrite that you are.
EDIT: "You" being the Grauniad not you personally of course.
Go to your local WH Smith. There are hundreds of good quality magazines on display. With rolling 24 TV news that may be where to look.
Putting it another way, if the referendum made it clear that we WILL be entering into a deal with the EU no matter what the details are because there is NO WAY we leave with no deal then nobody with a single brain cell would have voted to leave because it is obvious that we would be stuffed. Yet this is where we are. The premise renders the referendum a sham.
I'm glad that the useful idiots of the opposition benches helped us get a better deal, a better PM and a better Parliament with a better majority. Couldn't have been done without them marching through the lobbies with the likes of Baker etc
They are being slow to pay out, I don't think that's particularly unusual?
Betdaq have very few politics markets and as far as I can tell - very limited liquidity in their markets.
This is just a nasty vindictive witch-hunt.
We ought to welcome what is a rare opportunity to get pretty much free money from those who either believe Trump can pull off a miracle, or have left their long odds money unmatched on the table and forgotten about it.
I've worked in companies where some of my co-workers were fools, and I wouldn't like someone to judge me for their behaviour.
https://gript.ie/names-338-guardian/
Pathetic! I'm pretty sure if the report claimed she was deliberately bullying then the hypocrites like the Grauniad seeking to tear down someone they have deliberately tried to offend in racist imagery would have quoted that.
The EU does it: "maintaining food standards"
The UK does it: "retaliating"
https://www.rte.ie/news/
The rules made perfect sense, especially as it was always likely there would be legal issues and possible complications in respect of matters like faithless electors. By refusing to settle in accordance with them they are retaining huge amounts of punter money. They are also setting a bad precedent.
Punters not only need clear rules, they need to have confidence the bookie will settle in good faith. This is worst example of a bookie not doing so that I have ever come across.
Just comfort yourself that Labour's bad deal which probably agrees a capitulation on fishing and state aid would have been so much better, had the Conservative Party had any involvement.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1331523118658187264?s=20
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1331524421580972032?s=20
This is what I don't like about Bell. Not only is he not funny, there's too often situations where he seems to be deliberately sailing close to the wind, or something can be taken as one of two things. Dog whistles vs eye of the beholder stuff. Seems a bit pointlessly provocative at best.
Good deal > No deal > Bad deal.
The idea that any deal is better than no deal is nonsensical.
If you want to be deliberately provocative and racist then I will defend your right to free speech, while calling a spade a spade. Some magazines especially make a living by being deliberately provocative, like Charlie Hebdo in France or to a lesser extent Private Eye here.
But if you're deliberately provactive and racist in one breath then call for the head of someone you've been racially abusing because they were "carelessly giving offence" then that is rank hypocrisy.
If Labour voted against then it would have a Hard Time in the former red wall seats. However, voting for a deal that will sink whats left of industry in the red wall isn't going to be a vote winner either so portraying it as the "Boris Brexit" is critical. If as openly suggested by Nissan they shut their factory Labour need to show that the Tories willfully lied to everyone about an oven ready deal to make things better.
Indeed, Labour's anti-Semitism is a stain on the party and the nation.
Conservatives are not prejudiced? I wouldn't want to slander any sitting Conservative MPs, but Terry Dicks say "hi" from beyond the grave.
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1331535743718739969
The Tories have expelled any racists for decades, while the Labour Party is still anguishing about what to do with antisemites. The fact you're needing to resort to naming a Tory who wasn't an MP at all this century just rather proves the point!