Julie Birchill on why the press has been fairly quiet on Eric Joyce

That’s characteristically blistering of her.

Excellent appraisal by JB and shocking in equal measure.

I always wondered why they paid India Knight to basically state the bleedin’ obvious every week with blistering articles like ‘you shouldn’t moan if you move to the country and it smells’ or ‘why I love the country now I have sold up in London and can afford to buy somewhere surrounded by fields’ or if she’s not talking about her house in the country, ‘what books I am reading’ or ‘let me give you my opinion of a non event that was in the news this week’... Wow! Such amazing journalism. And great taste in men.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention as I was not aware of any of this.

Well done Julie.

And "behind the wokescreen" is a fabulous turn of phrase which to neatly encapsulates the worst side of this current shitshow.

I'm a bit worried by the aside that the Times is making an editorial policy change to align itself on the side of wokedom to get a younger readership. I hope this is not so, but Burchill being a press insider probably does know the inside gossip.

I'm truly shocked that Eric Joyce hasn't gone to prison. I saw coverage of the case but hadn't realised that he had been sentenced. If it was in the mainstream press then I missed it, and it can't have been very prominent. Disgraceful.

This is a very powerful article by Julie Burchill. I'm about to phone the Times and cancel my online subscription. I'm disgusted by India Knight's reaction and the idea that people in the media are protecting her. We can all choose the company we keep. If I were her I wouldn't be keeping his for another second.

Omg shocking. I did wonder why it hadn’t had more press.

This is such a good article, thanks for sharing.

I'm ever so slightly uncomfortable with some of her comments about India Knight, mostly because she seems to relish in hating her. But she is absolutely right in questioning the silence of the media around Eric Joyce. What he did was disgusting and it has essentially been brushed under the carpet as some sort of "oh silly boy, but he's learnt his lesson, don't have a go at him" narrative.

I knew someone who was jailed for possessing child abuse images. It sounds like they were the same category as Eric Joyce. The person I knew got 18 months sentence, 9 months in jail. I am no longer in contact with them and I cannot ever understanding someone who could effectively ignore what they did.

Thanks for that op.

Excellent article - I'm another one who was puzzled at the lack of coverage for this.

I am disappointed that she repeatedly referred to 'child pornography' though - words matter, and these are images of child sexual abuse.

In fairness, MN FWR got there first with the scoop:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3961173-Eric-Joyce-pleads-guilty-to-offence-of-making-indecent-image-of-child

Many people on this thread were speculating that the reason for the suspicious press black-out was that Joyce was married to IK.

But I still think well done Julie for bringing it to a wider audience.

I love Burchill.

That's all I have to say really, so I'll say it again - I love Burchill.

Blisteringly good & nailed it as usual. The silence on Joyce has been shameful. I’m not sure an ex Tory MP would have got off so lightly.

True. The press response is shameful. Silence speaks louder.
India Knight is a disgrace. She is wealthy. Not tied to him through lack of money or opportunities to get out. She is enabling him.

I think we should all boycott her books too. After all she is living with him. Supporting him. Why should we contribute towards hus lifestyle, indirectly via her.

The points it made about Joyce are entirely fair but it feels like it spends more time attacking IK than him, which feels wrong.

Sorry to to be a wet blanket among the general jollity, but I thought the article was a bit embarrassing. It's a hatchet job pure and simple, a one-sided attack on another person--in fact one woman savaging another. India Knight may well be something of a twit (or a complete twit, if you prefer) but I just thought Burchill went on too intently, too long. After this I came away with less respect for her.

That’s a scorcher. Thanks Julie 👍🏻

I wonder if the Julies Bindel and Burchill have any time for each other. Both corruscating critics, both truth tellers and for that both valued and denigrated.

I agree that the attacks on IK were too personal, and negated the impact of the article and the astounding facts that this shocking sentence has been so underreported in the media, and that she is supporting him.

Vile man, vile crime, deserves sunlight. Great lashing from JB and so hope it gets more coverage. I hadn’t realised he was also a TRA.

Another who cringed at the over the top attacks on India. The nepotism angle was more than enough. I am grateful for this absolute gem, though:

Knight and Joyce exemplify what the commentator Daniel Norris calls the ‘Wokescreen’ – a thing vicious people hide behind in order to do harm while telling others to #bekind.

@JunoJigglewick but to be fair, IK is vile!

Nice to see Julie Burchill back.
I read her "Spiked" article and it makes important points about Joyce, but I thought it a bit unnecessary to suggest that IK was enough to turn her first husband gay.
I then thought I'd have a look at Spiked as I hadn't come across it before, and found this somewhat disturbing article about Dawn Butler's recent experiences.
www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/10/dawn-butlers-dodgy-racism-story/
It seems to be saying that because the police were polite, stopping her wasn't racially motivated, and that it was reasonable to stop her because the car was registered as coming from out of town. Like that is an acceptable reason to stop a car. So if Spiked is printing excuses for racism like the Dawn Butler article, is it a reputable publisher?

However, I don't want to dereail from the fact that Eric Joyce is a convicted paedophile and Julie Burchill makes a good explanation as to why and how the press are keeping quiet about it.

I really don't understand this argument, the one phrase doesn't preclude the other, at all. Pornography just means images created for a sexual purpose, it in no way implies that it wasn't created in an abusive way, even if it involves images.If you say sexual images it means the same thing as pornography. If it's child pornography than it's explicitly involving abuse, always, as sexual activity with children is abusive.