… to ask why Giles Coren hasn’t been cancelled yet?

[mowly77]

The vile Dawn Foster tweets ffs. But he seems Teflon coated. He will never be cancelled. Three fucking columns a week … a pissing radio show, albeit on Times Radio, which surely no one listens to. I would love to be proved wrong. Absolutely love to be.

@mustlovegin @Bryonyshcmyony Here is some since I’m obviously winding you guys up! Is that ‘incitement’?

at the dark warnings that people on this thread might get in trouble for 'incitement'

It's a load of crap. Any incitement would be deleted & should be. But of course that's just because I have no idea what incitement is 😜

I don't agree that this discussion is pointless. I am finding it very eye opening indeed

Yep

I think some of the things written on here about IK could be defamatory. No idea what constitutes incitement, probably not a load of middle class women getting tutty over Giles Coren and considering cancelling their middle class newspaper subscription.

report it then

report what?

I think some of the things written on here about IK could be defamatory.

this

Some of the worst ones have been deleted I see.

Anything defamatory should be deleted as it will get MNs into trouble, same for incitement.

Referencing something that's actually happened is not defamatory.

Because malicious, nasty people who display behaviours which the general population wouldn’t find acceptable shouldn’t be afforded the privilege that being in the public eye affords them. No one expects perfection but there are levels - if you live in the public eye and you reap the financial and social rewards that brings then are obliged to behave yourself and not be a piece of shit

Yeah, but you see I think people who want to cancel other people as they don't like what they say are nasty, malicious people who are behaving like pieces of shit. So do you see the problem in your argument there?

I actually think the cancel culture people are dangerous, it is deeply anti-democratic, massively elitist (as they are effectively deciding what views other people can hear and thereby what they can think) and an attempt to intimidate society into compliance.

So yeah, I think you are the bad guy on this? Does that mean I get to cancel you?

He hates having it pointed out that if he didn’t have the connections he does he wouldn’t be employed by the Times or broadcast media

Actually I have read an article when Giles happily references using his connections to get where he is. It was in reference to Philippa Middleton getting a column in the Waitrose magazine on the back of being Kates' sister. So that accusation at least would not seem to be true.

I think some of the things written on here about IK could be defamatory

Such as?

Well hopefully one day our brave warrior Giles Coren, who after a few Friday night shandies does brave things like accuse journalists of being paedophiles, will decide to punch up, rather than punching down at a dead person, or punching himself anonymously in an attempt to garner sympathy. Because at the moment he just seems malicious and elitist.

@allwrongitsallwrong

So yeah, I think you are the bad guy on this? Does that mean I get to cancel you?

Yes, report those you think are “the bad guy” to Mumsnet. Try to cancel them if you think what they are doing/saying/thinking is wrong. Just like I cancelled my Times subscription and complained to the BBC about Giles Coren. We live in a democracy and everyone has the right to complain to a legal service provider according to the Legal Ombudsman.

Yet he completely over-reacts to others who comment on his connections. He "couldn't not" call someone a paedophile because they did it, he made a disgusting tweet about a woman's death because of it.

It's his free speech and he's entitled to it, although making allegations you know to be untrue is legally iffy. Just as I am entitled to use my free speech to condemn his shit. And his xenophobia. And his antisemitism.

You think I'm the bad guy for that?

The correct reponse is not to be the market for this shit.

Act with your feet and don't comment on it. It affects revenue and that in turn will get editors thinking about content far more than trying to cancel someone will.

Its like using Barbara Striesand Effect as your Marketing Policy.

Wakey wakey.

Outraged from Tunbridge Wells is being played.

Because he is a MAN

@RedToothBrush

The correct reponse is not to be the market for this shit.

Act with your feet and don't comment on it. It affects revenue and that in turn will get editors thinking about content far more than trying to cancel someone will.

Its like using Barbara Striesand Effect as your Marketing Policy.

Wakey wakey.

Outraged from Tunbridge Wells is being played.

You don’t get to tell people what the correct response is @RedToothBrush. We all choose how we respond.

@RedToothBrush, I have removed myself from his market. I will comment though, as I dont agree that women being silent about things they find objectionable is a good strategy.

I will comment though, as I dont agree that women being silent about things they find objectionable is a good strategy

Hasn’t worked in the past

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

I will comment though, as I dont agree that women being silent about things they find objectionable is a good strategy

Hasn’t worked in the past

I am really not sure that cancel culture is particularly helpful to women.

If anything I would argue that it is disproportionately used to target women.

I very much hope the Barbara Striesend Effect kicks in here and shines a light on the way our print newspapers work.

And their treatment of the truly talented, female, working class journalist, Dawn Foster compared to their cossetting of the middle class, middle aged, fuckwitted men who silenced her in life and abused her in death.

Great Post ^

am really not sure that cancel culture is particularly helpful to women

I don’t think its helpful to anyone