Owen Jones has relentlessly persecuted women online, including his own colleagues. An external investigator brought in by The Guardian has found him guilty of bullying a female columnist.

I'd be amazed if they didn't. You just don't manage to keep doing what they do for so long if you don't have a culture of backing everything up.

Immediately the name of another trans activist columnist at the Guardian popped into my head, and I wondered if she'd changed her mind about her politics for Owen to say that. Then I realised that she's female, so presumably she isn't real to Owen.

It's not based on one tweet though is it. We've all seen him in action. He's talking about the tweet he got pulled up on.

I contributed a story to Private Eye once. I can confirm that they are very thorough indeed.

I sent the initial approach to Ian Hislop, and an Eye journalist rang me and talked me through it, asked for copies of the docs which backed up my story, she spoke to me again to claify a few things, and she put the short piece together 'In The Back'.

It was a fair bit of work for a couple of hundred words; but it was certainly watertight.

I can't imagine that the Eye don't have access to background documents from the Observer / Guardian / Jones / Investigation.

The Guarditran!?

He says that they're bullying him based on literally one tweet, that people think there's something else but it's just that. There was no investigation at all then? That would seem to be rather a goalpost move.

He's a victim of a plot to drive the only trans ally columnist out of The Guardian apparently.

That is a bit of a kick in the teeth for some of his colleagues then! I imagine more than one of them considers themselves a "trans ally"?

And private eye are in on this nefarious plot are they? Sure Owen.

I see Owen's up and running with another long thread on Twitter. He's a victim of a plot to drive the only trans ally columnist out of The Guardian apparently.

Fair point, I could probably spare a tenner for that level of hilarity.

That’s my subscription cancelled now. Never liked his writing and ignored is columns but can’t keep supporting this.

I am confident that the Eye crosses every t and dots every i before they go to print, so I actually would donate to a crowdfunder for OJ to sue, just for entertainment's sake.

Please do it Owen, please!

I know someone who is friends with Kennedy. She (the person I know) considers herself to be a trail blazing feminist.
I have no idea how you marry the two,
huge conflict there surely?

Dear me, not a wise idea from Dr Kennedy there.

Go to posts passim (sorry, sorry, but I love the use of passim in the Eye) on page 10, evening of the 15th April.

Terrified to go up against Ian Hislop & Richard Ingrams

However that requires an ability to shut the fuck up.

Yes, doomed to failure from the start.

That would be such a stupid thing to do. In a way I'm sorry OJ doesn't have the cashola for it and the Guardian don't seem like they'd be up for it either, because it would be beautiful to observe.

When the Private Eye story being discussed on Twitter, suing the publication was being touted as a response.

There was also an outburst about how awfully transphobic the Eye is, from a certain lawyer. Nothing to be seen today though from the lawyer or LOJ.

Oh, while I'm here...

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/simon-danczuk-mp-watched-porn-who-cares

Really?! Who was that?

I thought LOJ's supporters were going to sue Private Eye? What happened to that then?

Oh yeah, they've evidently seen the investigation. That's why Owen originally wanted to turn this into semantic arguments about what constitutes bullying

Safe to assume that Private eye are very sure of their source on this one.

@ResisterRex Yes, Private Eye's new issue reiterates quotes from the Grauniad's independent investigator's finding that Jones had breached the paper's guidelines because "his use of language/tone were found to be personalised, demonstrating, in our assessment, a lack of professionalism". The investigator wrote to Jones' colleague who had made the complaint against him that "These findings are further supported by Jones' failure to recognise the impact of of his actions when considering the size of his following on Twitter. We found that it was reasonable of you to feel offended, intimidated and insulted by his tweets". The Eye notes that ACAS' definition of being bullied includes "behaviour from a person or group that is either offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting". So Jones' behaviour was indeed bullying - QED.

The Father Ted argument, though at least Graham Linnehan was making a joke when he wrote it:
"Say if there are 200 million priests in the world and five percent are paedophiles. That's still only 10 million."