Owen. Not getting it or goady? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

Did anyone ever find that statement that the Guardian was supposed to have released, regarding the workplace harassment? I know Owen posted a screenshot of the (poorly punctuated) draft before the Easter weekend, on twitter and facebook, but did the full version come out?

IIRC, five complainants went to the police, and Owen called it a "campaign of lies". A nine year old girl and her mother and three other women, but sure, it's a campaign of lies.

He was demonstrably wrong about a woman who was the victim of a sex crime, and not only did he not want to hear "both sides" he has never acknowledged that he was wrong.

And just to point out: the Guardian recently appointed an independent investigator to look into its journalists' social media behaviour, and it concluded that OJ had been intimidating and harassing fellow journalists on his own paper. The Guardian will, presumably, have given OJ a warning as a result. What OJ has done is not just breach journalistic ethics but stick two fingers up to the Guardian editor. He must be convinced he's untouchable.

He did not.

Here is what Owen Jones said about the incident of the person at Wi-Spa. Let us remember that there was a nine-year-old girl in that hot tub. Since then, a convicted thief and serial sexual offender has been charged with indecent exposure, in connection with the incident.

Anti-trans activists and the far right are openly converging - as this brilliant @GuardianUS report on a campaign of lies over a LA spa underlines.

Lois, one of the reporters, was assaulted while covering anti-trans protests.

A crucial wake up call over this growing menace.

Owen Jones on twitter

IIRC, five complainants went to the police, and Owen called it a "campaign of lies". A nine year old girl and her mother and three other women, but sure, it's a campaign of lies. The only woman to come forward publicly was dragged through the mud online, and goodness knows what she had to withstand in real life, and all whipped up by media.

Well said, Purgatory. Despite calling himself a journalist, OJ doesn't seem to understand the very basic principle that there are good reasons for not disclosing identifying information. No doubt if he'd been alive to read Berstein and Woodward's Watergate investigation, he'd have been dismissing it on the basis that they didn't name their source.

Using Twitter to try to identify the school and speak to the students involved is such a flagrant breach of journalistic ethics that it's breathtaking.

And Talcum X isn't a journalism and admits that. He is a mere rent a gob.

That's okay, I will be delighted to explain.

The Times know exactly which school it is. They haven't named it, in order to protect the anonymity of the children. If Owen Jones really wishes to investigate this, he has access to the same context clues that mean that he could approach possible schools privately and directly.

Has he done that? No. He has not. He has made a tweet on the extremely open platform twitter, where he has 1 million followers, asking to be spoonfed more details about a situation involving children. Let's spell that out. He has invited people with knowledge of the situation to contact him with identifying details. That carries the very real risk that one or more people will reply to his twitter thread with names. Of children. And once those names are out there and screenshot by other followers, memories cannot be wiped.

Now, you may say that you never thought of this. That's irrelevant. You are not a journalist. Owen Jones is, and is supposed to be able to foresee such a risk and to take steps to avoid it.

He is trying to identify a child who has been horrendously bullied in order to discredit her. Viner should sack him on the spot. He's been identified as a bully already because of his behaviour on Twitter and instead of stopping, he's doubled down.

Perhaps what you think was missing from the coverage of the Stephen Lawrence case was the perspective of the men who killed him?

Similarly, in the case of 16-year old Lauren Lelonek, who killed herself after being bullied at school, journalists inexplicably neglected to ask the people who bullied her for their side of the story (uk.news.yahoo.com/family-teen-killed-herself-bullied-high-court-school-police-125057900.html). They really should have put Owen on the case.

Maybe the next time a young person is destroyed by bullying, journalists should seek out the all-important perspective of the people who bullied them.

Exactly this!

Fucking hell.
A Man trying to contact young girls. That certainly looks dodgy as fuck. Even if hes trying to reach the parents, presumably for the story he would need to talk to the girls.
Does he have any DBS or other safeguarding certificates?

That's terrifying! Witchfinder central. Against a fucking child!

Why are you a bully for trying to get both sides when it comes to a newspaper article?

I may have missed it, but did OJ try to get both sides of the WIspa incident, or Maria MacLachlans assault, did he try to speak to Rosie Duffield or JKR to hear both sides, I could go on but you get the drift.

OJ isn't interested in both sides he is interested in discrediting women he disagrees with.

Last time he was on Jeremy Vine he said his mum lives in Edinburgh. I now can't watch JV when he's on (and I've gone off JV too).

Why has he still got a platform after an investigation found him to be a bully, which actually didn't state the word bully so it was ok.

He's not even a journalist. Just a shrill opinion columnist who has abandoned critical thinking on this issue. It's a bad look for him and the Guardian.

It's not that he is trying to get the other side or perhaps both sides of the issue. It's that he goes to Twitter and asks his enormous followers to start digging for him! That is unethical, because the school and the girls will be doxxed and possibly the girl in the story harassed.

Journalists do their research not by loudly asking for help on social media, but by following the obvious clues even I, an amateur could see exists in this story. Those would allow him to get to the school, but it's not good to use a foghorn in the manner he did.

It is quite upsetting because of the online mobs and what we know they do. Sometimes individuals with the same name as someone that is hated by a group on Twitter get harassed in real life. Sometimes the person they wish to harass lives with vulnerable family members who end up being harassed instead. And so on.

This is what I don't get.
Why?
Why are you a bully for trying to get both sides when it comes to a newspaper article?!
That's the way it's always been.
That's what journalism is.
Or used to be before people say bully for doing exactly that.

That was supposed to be a question mark, not exclamation mark at the end

He also challenges ( if that is the word) “perceptive discrimination” when people are treated unfairly on the grounds that they are ‘perceived’ to have a protected characteristic, he gives as an example Sikh men( not, you notice Sikh women, or even Sikh people
I read the article. It was a good and thought provoking one calling out toxic masculinity.
So why would it be talking about Sikh women!

The man is digging in.

Owen: Let me be very, very clear: I'm not going to be silenced, ever, under any circumstances, on LGBTQ rights. t.co/PIvuuY1vKi

He's paired that comment with a little video of himself.

Owen on twitter

Does he want to give the bullies a (louder) voice?! WTAF!

Okay, I take back my hedging. He is, indeed, trying to argue that sexism and misogyny are forms of genderism. They are not. They are based on biological sex and have historically been one way to keep the female reproductive and sexual resources subjugated.

Some very amusing OJ limericks on Twitter at the moment.

#OwenJonesIsABullys has been trending all evening. Currently at No. 2

You are absolutely right this tells you everything about OS

what a vile man he is