Janice Turner puts the boot into @glinner

He's essentially a writer who does edgy comedy. Of course some of his stuff is going to land poorly. Especially when he's been put directly under fire and his career was basically slammed into a wall. He's not a politician.
I'm prepared to cut him a load of slack. Other people don't. Which is OK as long as we acknowledge what he has sacrificed. At a time when no one else would.
The only way he can be brought back into the fold of successful writers is when the rest of the industry wakes up. It's starting to. A bit. But we are a long way off. It.

Politics is a dirty business. I mean, if you think you have a chance at more influence, maybe you need to show you're "pure" by dissociating from those who use the word "pedophile" pretty liberally.

Who knows, I think Turner is staking her position that she objects to Linehan as the patriarchy, and that she's in the "intellectual" GC camp, the one of Dr. Jane Clare Jones and WPUK...she and they really hate KJK, and see Linehan cut from the same cloth.

And maybe seeing him have a moment of sheer joy and respite for once as his book launch exceeds expectations, she feels she is ok to kick him.

We all moaned about that lecturer barracking the recent book launch, calling him a little bully and snitch. I'm sorry, but I feel this about her.

This is no Hadley Freeman look both ways take, this is snide, pure and simple.

I think her review is fair enough. A lot of headline reviews by name columnists end up being about the wider issues of the book and a personal perspective rather than close criticism and textual analysis.

Just to say I am a massive Glinner fan as a writer and to some extent as a campaigner and have encountered him a couple of times at WPUK, SFW and Sex Matters events. I have the book on order.

But also I am dismayed posters on a FWR thread are criticising a female journalist for writing about a man without taking into account his feelings or profile.

Why would she do this?

Spite, envy, and fear.

It's interesting that Bindel and WPUK get name checked. It does make one wonder if they're encouraging their friends to write such pieces in order to disassociate themselves from the less genteel amongst us.

"The Father Ted creator is a comedy genius but his vituperative advocacy for women's rights does more harm than good."

It's quite a claim that Glinners advocacy has done 'more harm than good'.
I've watched 'The mess we're in' podcast and he seems pretty balanced on that and they have great female guests from around the world fighting against gender ideology.
Perhaps it's a legacy media vs new media problem, Journalists like to set the direction and don't like other voices gaining traction.

@OvaHere good post. I suspect you are right in your prediction. It is a worrying time. Asking oneself if one would be prepared to lie about fundamental truths (sex) in order to usher in a politics that looks after the needy more. A real dilemma. I don't have an answer yet personally. A lot soul searching needed.

Yes - I hope he’s currently putting together a documentary or panel show highlighting how gender ideology is affecting life, careers, politics, education, etc.

He’s a massive voice to have onside, but he has of course been a wrong voice about things, such as Aids not being a problem for anyone heterosexual, and that HIV was not the cause of it. I worked in the field at the time and he was very very unhelpful. I’m glad there was no internet back then, that’s for sure.

We all know the issues of genderism cause pain. It is why we fight them - pain for ourselves, each other, and in particular young people. I think it is unkind then to publicly denounce a person like Glinner for expressing that pain. I think less of Janice Turner as a professional for this. Shame. No-one seems to consider that Glinner might not really have been able to not express something so crazy. This may in fact be where his comedy genius lies too. Churlish of her. He has my sympathy and my thanks.

Of course it's a men's issue too. The first victims of this insanity were men ,well boys I suppose, the Riemer twins. Jazz Jennings is a man ffs.

But I think the sub conscious bias is because Graham is not from academe. He isn't a broadsheet journalist or features editor. Though no doubt his sex plays into it.

Andrew Neil was huge and he apologized.

I think he tends to go off half-cocked, and be very accusatory, when it's really not fair or appropriate. The David Tennant incident is a good example, it's not difficult to slightly modify your language to show the connections to safeguarding issues without basically calling someone a pedophile. The latter isn't effective, but also, maybe more importantly, it's not true. I am sometimes surprised that as someone who is a subtle writer, he doesn't manage to do this and I think it must be due to lack of reflection in the moment. There is good sense in the advise not to send letters, email, Twitter comments, in a hotheaded moment, but to reflect a bit first, for almost everyone. Social media of course encourages the opposite.

That being said, I really hate this "man, keep your nose in, this is a woman-issue" shit. Especially when it's clearly an all society issue with many different facets. There are men being directly affected by this, men have mums and sisters and wives and daughters and female friends, men have an interest in a just society, in medical malpractice, in a robust democracy. And in the next breath you will often have the same women who say are decrying how men don't support women's issues.

I also don't think that it's unreasonable that an autobiography mainly talks about the person the book is about.

People are complicated innit?

SPEAKFUR YERSEL HEN

I haven't always agreed with the way Glinner has done things but I do think that he acknowledges that in the book - he says quite frankly that he realises that sometimes he was unnecessarily unpleasant and upset people and acknowledges that that hasn't helped.

I largely agree with her about Glinner. I think he's a brilliant comedian, very brave and has been subject to appaling treatment but he's clearly been unwell and has behaved poorly at times.

None of that is relevant to a book review- she's written a review of his personality. Ironically she's doing exactly what she accuses Glinner of- grinding her own axe at the cost of making an effective point.

I think Graham Linehan is a ruddy genius (see user name), but I swerve him on here and haven't signed up to his substack or watched his podcasts because he's always in broadcast mode, and frankly he says things that make me wince. I think it comes from personal pain, but I'm not obliged to be the audience for it.

I've bought his book and am reading it. He's a good writer, it's no hardship.

I think Janice Turner is right, but I'm not convinced taking to The Times to make her points was necessary.

Although it's good to see the book referenced in a mainstream national newspaper, so there is that.

People are complicated innit?

JIST THE WAN VOLUME IS IT

Glinner has lost so much in this fight. I think it has become all-consuming for him and I can understand if some people just disengage. But some of the criticism of him does come across like victim blaming - like, why does this abused person keep going on and on about abuse? Why would someone who lost their career, family, and reputation to TRAs go on and on about TRAs and their abuse?

Graham's book is lovely, so funny, and he is clearly a sensitive and lovely man. Everyone should read it.

AHM NO KEEN ON FUDGE CAKE AH PREFER A BIT O PIE

As a shop steward I had to represent a guy whose job was on the line - he had used council a computer for a private email iirc. One day a friend and I banged into him and he told us he'd taken his kids out of nursery as he wasn't sure he'd have a job in a month's time and they needed that money.

When he left my friend said ' he's a nice guy - but it's all he ever talks about '. Well yes , it would be wouldn't it? Graham's travails remind me of that man. Its his life and career being destroyed , of course it will seem all consuming.

Politics. Never rewards the hardcore.

Look at Zelensky and Ukraine. 18 months ago, unanimity with the West, Poland especially.

Today? Zelensky snubbing Poland to sidle up to Germany, Poland also under massive pressure from Brussels and Washington.

There's no more brotherhood here.
And just wait until Trump wins next year.

My point is, that like political parties, the GC movement is a broad church, containing plenty of people who dislike each other, and disapproval of each others tactics.

I just think Turners piece is not so much hit piece as deeply disappointing hissy fit and declaration he's not classy enough for her.

I didn't feel the same way about Freeman's piece. That was her expressing concern he'd damaged his life over single minded doggedness. Turner's piece just feels nasty.

I am absolutely angry with my brothers for not being as vocal as they could have been. Could you imagine if even a few fearless well known individuals said something...anything?
Even those close to retirement, those with money behind them.

Plausible deniability now, plausible deniability in future. As for men, it's Linehan, and then...and then...well, who?

Sure, Ricky Gervais, and he's the closest male analogue to JKR, filthy rich and full of attitude. Dawkins now. But beyond this? Tumbleweed.

Blocking someone is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la, I can’t hear you.

I don’t think it is, Cautious. I think it’s “this is not stuff I want to engage with on my feed.” Particularly when the person has a habit of @-ing people into conversations

It's similar to Hadley Freeman's article a couple of weeks back. I'm not in total disagreement with them about Glinner's shortcomings, indeed he can be somewhat obsessive about the causes he involves himself in.

I think we need to bear in mind the context of the circumstances in which these articles are being written. Some of it may be personal but some of it is also about positioning for a seat at the table now Sir Keir is looking like a PM in waiting. Part of that is distancing anyone who is not 'reasonable and measured'.

Since the 2019 election there's been an ever so slight thawing towards the GC women who remain Labour supporters and members. Both Keir and Wes Streeting have made remarks that if you squint could be viewed as conciliatory or acknowledging women in a small way.

At the conference this week someone gave Jess Philips the green light to attend the LWD fringe event with Karen Ingala Smith (who I believe has been reinstated as a Labour member).

As the election looms we will see deeper splits amongst the 'GC' along political lines. If Kelly Jay stands against Keir Starmer as she has previously said she wants to I predict things will get particularly nasty on a personal level.

A number of people will want us to accept whatever fudge Labour come up with as a win for women so a line can be drawn and they can be welcomed back in to the fold of a moderate new Labour government and no longer be pariahs in their own party.