Rod Liddle thinks Susie Green should be jailed

It was a rhetorical comment.

Susie Green has committed a blatant crime, publicly admitted it, and at the very least it should be taken very seriously and investigated by the police.

The police should also be under investigation, for doing the opposite of that. For being Green's personal security service.

It's almost unbelievable.

It was a rhetorical comment.

James Kirkup told any journalist who was listing that Caroline Farrow had been subject to police pressure because of words she wrote.

There won't be a journalist alive who isn't all over this now.

Sunlight. It's extraordinary.

I'm not going to bother reading an article by Rod Liddle but he's correct. Susie Green has committed a blatant crime, publicly admitted it, and at the very least it should be taken very seriously and investigated by the police.

Isn't it odd how The Guardian who love to report on any kind of police mis-behaviour have been totally silent on this?

No, it's not odd, it's just as you would expect them to be.

I wonder if Rod will be the next to get a phone call?

Don't be silly - Rod has a Y chromosome which renders him safe

Graham Linehan and Miranda Yardley have Y chromosomes. What keeps Rod Liddle safe is he is a hugely popular columnist backed up by the power and the pocket of The Sunday Times.

"Rachel McKinnon also identifies as a ‘doctor’, having completed a PhD in Specious Twattery at some dimbo college in Canada"

I wonder if he knew the subject of McKinnon's PhD when he wrote that? You could literally subtitle it: On The Subject of Specious Twattery.

Isn't it odd how The Guardian who love to report on any kind of police mis-behaviour have been totally silent on this?

This is nicely done. The S.Green Police Force is due a reality check.

I wonder if Rod will be the next to get a phone call?

Don't be silly - Rod has a Y chromosome which renders him safe.

Is there anything that Liddle says that could be the subject of legal action, either libel or a criminal case of malicious communication? Because I can't see it myself.

Either way, it's very unlikely Green will go after someone big and powerful like the Sunday Times. Much easier to harass and intimidate individuals like Caroline Farrow.

I think it is a defence of journalism. James Kirkup emphasised freedom of the press in his early column about this and I think The Times and Rod Liddle are taking it one step further with a dare to complain as PPs have said.

The anti-materialist genderists have only themselves to blame.

I predict a lot less reporting of "female" crime coming to newspapers soon.

daring Susie Green to report them to the police.

Rod clearly wants a phonecall from WYP, i suspect he has some plans for when they do call him.

Ha - x-posted with loads of posters there.

That'll teach me to chat to DH about it before hitting post.

Incredible feat of repeated misgendering (ie. using the correct pronoun based on Susie G's child's sex) there by Liddle.

Joani Walsh - from that tweet above: Unbelievable balls from Liddle and the Sunday Times editorial team and lawyers. The police will have to be called here to prove the complaints against Farrow and Parker weren't because they're women - or maybe they'll have a case to make.

So, what will Susie G do now? Get the police onto Rod, or the Times? Or just carry on trying to Police-censor gender critical women and transexuals?

If Rod Liddell can get away with stating these facts without a phone call SG’s friends, can we all repeat these facts, without fear?

Haha.

So Rod Liddle and The Sunday Times are blatantly and directly daring Susie Green to report them to the police.

Good stuff.

They are telling the public that there is a free speech issue here and that discussion of Susie Green's decision making is fair game for public debate.

Good luck Susie.

Now everyone can do this, because the newspapers have established the public interest argument and defence very firmly indeed.

I think that pretty much kills off any legal action along these lines as it would be hard for a court to rule in Green's favour.

I was initially baffled at Joani's tweet: "Unbelievable balls from Liddle and the Sunday Times editorial team and lawyers." I assumed she meant "balls" as in "complete rubbish". Then realised she meant "balls" as in "cojones".

I'm not sure that what Liddle wrote is even potentially libellous, actually. He hasn't stated anything but the facts. I do think that now he's spoken out, others will follow.

Most of the rest of his column is the usual nonsense about too many female presenters on the BBC, though.

"Rachel McKinnon also identifies as a ‘doctor’, having completed a PhD in Specious Twattery at some dimbo college in Canada".

Brilliant! 😄

Good.

Journalists do not like other journalists being subjected to attempts at state censorship on behalf of lobby groups.

I predict more gloves coming off.

"Rachel McKinnon also identifies as a ‘doctor’, having completed a PhD in Specious Twattery at some dimbo college in Canada".

That made me laugh.

This makes me so happy

Do you think Susie will be sending her minions after Rob? Nope, me neither, she saves her bully tactics for women.

I see you Susie 👀 and I tell everyone about what you did to your child and not one person I’ve spoken to doesn’t agree that you should at a minimum be removed from any position near our children.

I liked Liddle's description of Rachel McKinnon, transgender cyclist, in the Speccy a while back.

www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/good-news-now-everyone-can-be-a-victim/

"Rachel McKinnon also identifies as a ‘doctor’, having completed a PhD in Specious Twattery at some dimbo college in Canada".