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.

So glad that LOJ has clarified that he hadn't been found guilty of bullying, just of driving harassment and intimidation of women. For a moment there I thought he might be one of the bad guys...

It’s like OJ and Jo M have lost their powers of basic reason.

They really have. This is your brain on gender identity ideology.

I dont get the sense that the Guardian would go into bat for LOJ on this one if he chose to litigate. It would be Talcum X and the Fox botherer, Vs Private eye. I know where my £££ would be

I’m sure Private Eye will be happy to clarify that ‘bullying’ isn’t the case and ‘driving harassment’ and ‘intimidation’ are. Knowing them, they will do so repeatedly

So happy to see this story. Intimidation and harassment are much more serious than bullying so he would have no chance of actually suing Private Eye ( I love them). Ian Hislop doesn’t give a monkeys he knows Owen can’t sue him.

And I think the more detailed descriptions and findings of harassment and intimidation are much more damaging.

It’s like OJ and Jo M have lost their powers of basic reason. Wood, trees maybe?

I'm not sure it would hold much water in a libel case that a generic accusation of "bullying" was defamatory when it is accepted that he drove harassment against and intimidated female colleagues.

I've stopped watching Jeremy Vine on C5 due to giving LOJ airtime. Just seeing him on the telly makes me angry.

Private Eye have been around the block a few times in terms of going to court. I don't think they'd be worried. I think OJ might well be, and that's why he's subdued. He'll know people will ask why he doesn't sue them.

I'd be keen for them to revisit the approach they took in Arkell vs Pressdram Ltd. lettersofnote.com/2013/08/07/arkell-v-pressdram/

Dear Sirs,

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

Yours,
Private Eye

So LOJ isn't found to be a bully, but is found to be 'driving harassment' and 'intimidating women'.

Well done Owen, you must be proud of yourself.

What an utterly ridiculous man he is. Does he think that will satisfy anyone?

I rather think that Ian Hislop —sex god— is more than a match for little Owen

How odd that the Guardian statement comes from a 'spokesman'. Most organisations, especially ones that see themselves as progressive, have moved to using 'spokesperson' now.

So LOJ isn't found to be a bully, but is found to be 'driving harassment' and 'intimidating women'.

Well done Owen, you must be proud of yourself.

Thanks for the clarifications.

I personally prefer the legal precision of the words ‘harassment’ and ‘intimidation’ to the more general word ‘bullying’ anyway. Quite why OJ might think this wording a vindication of any sort for him is a mystery. Frankly I think it appears worse.

Thanks for the screenshot, @PronounssheRa! What a prat Kimono Man is. He's a QC! I never cease to marvel at this.

That statement is amateur.

The eye article talks about harassment and intimidation, others have interpreted this as bullying behaviour. That's a reasonable view given people's experience of OJs twitter behaviour.

twitter.com/FeministRoar/status/1514274946335260679?

There's a lot of nuance involved here. I will hold up my hand as someone who read "bullied" as a word used by the complainant. In the context of the PE item, I then took that claim to be upheld. It's an odd form of wording otherwise but I'm open to it being my misunderstanding.

Andrew Doyle comments:

Today’s culture wars are largely being waged through the manipulation and misapplication of language. Many activists are explicit about their refusal to debate their ideas — for the simple reason they would collapse under scrutiny — and one of the ways this can be achieved is to destabilise shared definitions of words.

unherd.com/2022/04/when-libel-laws-are-needed/?1649653030161

I agree, ConfusedNoMore, I've found it really upsetting lots of times.

We just want to know the truth.
Why are people so afraid of him?

You know, I don't claim to understand all the ins and outs of things on here but I cannot cope with OJ and his supporters twisting of events. Having been abused mentally by my ex for years, it gives me the same feeling of going mad, of not being heard... It's horrendous. Even the phrase anti trans activists. I see feminists and TRAs. I see OJ doing cancel culture with his little pile ons not the other way around according to Ash Sakhar (no idea why she is a blue ticked?)

I'm not saying there aren't feminists who can be unpleasant, people are people, but the twisting and gaslighting...it's painful. Genuinely has reduced me to tears from being triggered. (And I hate that phrase).