Times reporting the sacking of Angelos Sofocleous

[Igneococcus]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/student-editor-angelos-sofocleous-fired-in-transphobia-row-fww5ds6nj?shareToken=29c4736b2a8d395f6a4d363319baa99f

Just looked at Mail comments again and my one asking people to complete the.consultation has now gone. Apparently there were a number of complaints made. Oh dear.

19,000 shares
1800 comments

Why would that break the rules?
Honestly, no reporting on n the BBC or anywhere about this major consultation - it's banned to mention it - what?

RaininSummer, I think that is important.

We probably have to allow that the media are taking babysteps. First an article without comments, then comments that are heavily moderated in advance, and then much freer comments. Now the Mail seems to be doing what MN sometimes seems to do, which is to pull stuff simply because it attracts complaints, whether those complaints are justified or not.

The consultation does not seem to have been carried out well. I am sure that there are guidelines for Government consultation. I am equally sure that someone on MN will know what these are. I assume that the consultation was set up quickly in response to the petition. I would not be surprised that to find that some woke people have found their way into this bit of Government policy making. (Only look at who the Government chooses to take advice from on the issue.)

If the consultation is not open and transparent and breaches guidelines, it would be worth concerned organisations complaining now. Easier that complaining about results that have been heavily skewed by organised responses. I feel there is an important newspaper story there.

In terms of the current media babysteps, I have always assumed that Mail stories change prominence, especially on the app, by the number of clicks. Lots of clicks, shares and comments tell them that this is a story people read. More prominence, so even more people reading. Good stats to give advertisers. So more reporting of storys covering the same issue. I assume The Times and Spectator monitor traffic in th same way. The more storys the less controversial the topic becomes, and the more diluted the voice to trans-activists. Plus the big advantage of tis mainstreaming is that for most people there is not an issue. TWANW. So the articles seem moderate and not hard to follow. Aruging the case for self ID is then the more difficult mountain to climb.

I suspect one of the reasons the consultation is being run the way it is (under the radar) is because of the success the TRA lobby has had in positioning self ID as "just like gay marriage, it only affects people who are trans". Thus they have created, up front, an environment in Whitehall which dismisses dissenting voices towards self ID as being just like extremely socially conservative/extreme religious objections to gay marriage. Because of course in the case of gay marriage the come back of "well, it doesn't actually affect you - don't like gay marriage, don't have one" is actually an unanswerable comeback.

However self ID is not like this. It does affect other people. Suppose my firm had a Pip Bunce working for us. On Pip's "Pippa" days, Pippa could come to the workplace gym, saunter into the women's open-plan changing room (where there will be women naked) and get Pippa's penis and balls out. Women who didn't like this - whether because of past sexual abuse, religion, or like me, because they simply didn't want to be naked in front of a man who wasn't their sexual partner - would have two choices: grit our teeth and shut up; or stop using the facility. (Because conveniently Pips apparently has weeks where he feels more manly and comes to work as a man on most days, and weeks where he feels more womanly and comes to work as a woman on most days - so you couldn't even try to work round his pattern, because he has none, everything is done according to his whim).

And that's only a trivial example - there are of course the much more serious examples of women's prisons, closed psychiatric wards, homeless shelters, DV shelters, rape crisis centres.

Self ID is NOT like gay marriage: self ID genuinely affects other people, specificially women.

You bet the Consultation hasn't been run well. Its stated opening premise is to make it easier to obtain a GRC. If it thought women had any say in the matter it would not make that assumption. Idiotic. And I've pointed that out

Fermat, exactly.

Self ID will affect all women, and have a disproportionate efect of the most vulnerable. I have looked up, and posted the thread about the consultation, the Cabinet Office Guidelines. This consultation breaches many of them. I think there should be formal protests by concerns groups to the Cabinet Office. Plus I hope some interested journalist will cover the fact that such an "under the radar", yet so important, consultation is happening. Lots of (most - probably) people clearly agree with Angelos and others. We dont want legislation that runs counter to both common sense and women's interests.

Quite a few international publications are running this story too.

Well this is interesting... I have received an email from DM to say that my comment has been reinstated.

Great news, Rain.

Tide is definitely turning. Everyday a little progress.

DM is running a rather critical article on Pips/Philip Bunce as well.

Interesting to see that change in reporting over the last few months.

I would not be surprised that to find that some woke people have found their way into this bit of Government policy making

This is without doubt. All of those involved were and are trans advocates. It's virtually certain that all were also advocates of self-ID. The LGBT Equalities Office will have drafted the survey and the documents around it, and the unequivocal stated aim there is to make it easier for more people to be treated as if they were the opposite sex under the law. Women were not perceived as stakeholders, so there was no feminist voice involved, at any stage.

Well done Rain for complaining. It is interesting how much things are shifting in terms of publicity in recent weeks.
I keep saying, we really don't have to do very much - the 'movement ' repeatedly reveals itself for what it is with minimal help from women.

The DM's readership will never ever accept self-id, even if it does become illegal to question it.

The DM are probably rubbing their hands with glee over all the shares they're getting.

But they, and the MPs they vote for, need to know about the consultation.

DM is running a rather critical article on Pips/Philip Bunce as well.

Interesting to see that change in reporting over the last few months.

They've had a change in editor as well I think - irrespective it's positive that it's hitting the headlines

In terms of the current media babysteps, I have always assumed that Mail stories change prominence, especially on the app, by the number of clicks. Lots of clicks, shares and comments tell them that this is a story people read. More prominence, so even more people reading. Good stats to give advertisers. So more reporting of storys covering the same issue. I assume The Times and Spectator monitor traffic in th same way.

Bingo.

And that's why I am very interested in those share numbers.

Which is now 23,000 BTW.

Angelos' story has additional traction because he looks like exactly the sort of person who would go the other way.

A quick scroll through the home page shows that it’s the most shared by a long way. So I predict more to come

I predict more Angelos in the media fill stop. He's young, he's cool, he's bright as a button and he's unafraid. GC media types who are desperate for a fresh face to try yet again with their editors to get space will fall on his neck. Watch out for him if n a Sky papers review any time now - I bet.

He's exactly the type to get asked on to moral maze or something like that.

Good for him if he does get opportunities out of this. Those that are sticking up for women's rights against the tide of bullying deserve to be rewarded.

Angelos's story really ought to get traction with the "intellectual dark web." Good for Angelos. I am glad he is getting a good reception from those with common sense. I really hope the media/alternative media take an active interest in him, because while I don't really like the idea that more people seem to realize the dangers with anti-woman-trans-activism when the messenger is a man (despite the fact that feminists have been banging on about it for forever), we really need all the exposure of this madness that we can get.
The emperor is stark naked, tyrannical and has been proven quite unfit to rule. Pass it on.

Fired from the free speech society for saying something that some people didn't like though, couldn't make it up