India knight still at the Times?

[Greenthomson]

Writing about her idyllic Christmas..I had no idea about her husband, is she still with him?

@EmpressoftheMundane please don't use the phrase "baby porn". It's not pornography, its images of child abuse.

Yes agreed.

And sicko Joyce has the brass neck to still be tweeting as if nothing happened. So has she but I think it’s part of her contracts to publicise her column and book.

She is still at the Times because of her stepfather.

I subscribe to the Times because there are many articles I enjoy reading, and especially for the Sunday Times but I never click on any of her articles.

Is IK now actually married to EJ? Everything I've seen calls him her 'partner'. Her idiotic food column has gone from ST, just stupid reviews of freebie cosmetics. What is she for?

I think it's slightly unfair to cancel her and her entire career. Maybe she is exhibiting some huge love and compassion to an extremely troubled soul. Possible.

FWIW found this in Guardian story: Joyce, who appeared at court in person, “says he accesses it via an email which he says was a spam email”. The judge added: “At the time he was drinking heavily and he has now undergone work with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and a psychotherapist.”

It's not just the images of child abuse with Eric Joyce. He has a long history of other criminal behaviour including assult, drink driving. brawling and criminal damage. He also ran up huge expense bills when an MP.

An entitled, aggressive, unpleasant man who thinks the rules don't apply to him. The fact that she's with him is the measure of her.

She’s too well-connected to be entirely cancelled.

Also, are you aware she seemed to have allowed their relationship to be used as a mitigating factor in his defence?

Imagine being do desperate to have a bloke that you'd go out with a violent, drink-driving nonce.

Revolting pair.

*so

It wasn’t just one spam email. He claimed it was but there was evidence on his computer that he had actively searched for abuse images.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-53694012.amp

“Initially Joyce told police "he had never seen child abuse material", Mr Proctor said.
But following analysis of his computer, Joyce told police that some of what he said "wasn't true" and that "he had seen a mixture of images".
The prosecution said there was evidence of searches "for material for five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10-year-old girls".“

He’s a disgusting scumbag and she must have something seriously wrong with her for sticking with him.

@NutsForMutts are you for real? Eric Joyce is a paedophile

And India Knight is a shameless prick for staying with him (I'm not sure whether they're actually married or not is hugely relevant?). And The Times and whoever else continues to fill space with her talentless drivel have a great deal to answer for.

And because the media are so selective about which scandals we need to be scandalised about, and which scandals should be quietly brushed under the carpet, this thread / others like it must keep being resurrected.

@NutsForMutts why shouldn't she be "cancelled"? She has stayed with him despite his convictions for child abuse. His barrister argued in court that he was being saved by the love of a good woman (or some other bollocks to that effect).

He'd already got several convictions for drink driving and violence, but she stuck with him. That may have been defendable but supporting a child abuser is not.

They make me sick.

Would be interesting to know if she ever sees her daughter (or son now it seems, from her/his fathers instagram) or whether that relationship has been sacrificed for Eric. In her writing she often mentions “we” - we did that, we stayed there - how can there be any point in telling these half stories of a life without either of them ever addressing this? Her substack is called Home, what is that short for - At Home with a Paedophile?

I am absolutely sickened that The Times would employ someone WHO IS A KNOWN PAEDOPHILE SYMPATHIZER AND ENABLER

Aside from India Knight’s relationship with Eric Joyce, I think she’s a talented writer and I like reading her articles. Yes, sometimes she comes across as a bit smug in some of her articles and the books she’s written, but I do think she’s a good writer on the whole.

She wrote a very moving article in last week’s Sunday Times about being invited to the funeral of one of the people killed in the Nottingham attacks (Grace O’Malley-Kumar) - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/grace-omalley-kumar-funeral-nottingham-attack-valdo-calocane-qd6zm96ck

That makes no sense. Writing with grace and empathy about one murdered child whilst staying with a man who gets off on children being molested.

I'm sorry, I don't care how good her writing is (and I don't think she's that great), the fact remains is that she writes articles in our most prestigious Sunday paper with no censure.

Last year she wrote an article which described Prince Andrew as "creepy". The hypocrisy of it is astounding. I don't think a hierarchy of abuse is necessarily a good idea, but she's supporting a man who downloaded images of a baby being raped and searched for images of pre pubescent girls. She shouldn't be given a platform in any newspaper.

Gosh I had no idea about any of this, and I am normally relatively well informed. Shocking.

How on Earth was she at the funeral? Presumably the parents must know that India Knight chooses to live with a convicted paedophile? How could they tolerate her even being in the church? Or even tolerate her having any place in their social circle, to be honest.

she might not be a bitch, she could be abused herself. Pedaphiles are abusive people. Their sphere of influence does not stop with children. People who were abused in their own childhood, physically, emotionally or sexually, often have arrested emotional development. This makes them as susceptible as a child to being abused. Calling India knight a bitch when we don’t know her might be throwing the baby out with the bath water. I would never judge a person who is involved with a known abuser until I knew them personally.

That's very kind of you @Rebeccaagar.
I'm not sure I'd be as kind.

I cannot fathom how anyone can stay with someone convicted of child abuse crimes. Convicted means a jury found them guilty. How can you stand by someone after they've been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a child abuser?

I haven’t clicked on an article of hers since I heard about her standing by Joyce. Disgusting for standing by him and enabling him.