Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Owen Jones looking to take on Janice Turner

88 replies

Freespeecher · 09/06/2019 19:12

Janice Turner isn't happy with Munroe Bergdorf working with Childline; Jones goes in to bat (not baseball bat. yet) for Bergdorf.

Seems to be accusing her of, amongst other things, misogyny by association. Which is interesting.

twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1137772296414867458

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
ZebrasAreBras · 09/06/2019 23:02

I think OJ has extremely cynically gone after JT because she’s probably being advised by lawyers to keep quiet right now - if MB is serious about lawyers over the ‘porn star’ tag then JT won’t be able to do much at the moment.

I sincerely doubt it. Janice wrote that Munroe was a 'porn model' - and Munroe is, because Munroe posed for Playboy, which is obvs classed as a porn mag. Janice has done nothing wrong, she has spoken the truth. Janice has written about how she is anti-porn in the past.

Munroe is utterly unsuitable as any sort of Ambassador or influencer (god I hate that word) for a children's charity.

WeWantJustice · 09/06/2019 23:11

Oh she will hand him his arse.

#TeamJanice

PlatypusPie · 09/06/2019 23:31

*Can anyone on twitter put him right?

I think this is probably a far more existential question than you realise*

I love this Grin

The OJ was holding forth on a TV panel around the European Election - my DH watched for a while and then asked ‘Who is the twerp and what is he adding to the conversation? ‘

I’ve just told DH that The Twerp is taking on one of favourite journalists and have had to go and rescue his eyeballs which have just rolled right out of his head,

RoyalCorgi · 10/06/2019 08:17

Janice wrote that Munroe was a 'porn model' - and Munroe is, because Munroe posed for Playboy, which is obvs classed as a porn mag.

This is true. Truth is an absolute defence in libel cases. Of course, even if it wasn't true, for the case to work, Munroe would have to argue that a porn star was a bad thing to be, and that if people were wrongly led to believe that Munroe was a porn star, then that would damage Munroe's reputation in the eyes of most right-thinking people.

So, think this through. Would Munroe really want to argue publicly - given the kind of people they hang around with - that being a porn star was a bad thing to be? They're supposed to be all in favour of sex workers, right? So accusing someone of being a porn star, by their own lights, is no worse than accusing someone of being , say, a teacher or a shop assistant.

Secondly, the tweet would have to damage Munroe's reputation. Given all we know about Munroe's past words and activities, does Munroe have a reputation to damage? Imagine one of the Times's lawyers on the case. It wouldn't take them very long to find information that would make Munroe's claim to have a reputation worth damaging look very foolish indeed. If Munroe fancies their chances in court being questioned by one of the top defamation lawyers in the country, well good luck to them. I'll be buying in the popcorn.

GirlDownUnder · 10/06/2019 08:50

Something I posted on the other MB thread:

It looks like NSPCC cut Monroe for reasons other than trans status, porn, or past comments:

https://mobile.twitter.com/warcholmondley/status/1137788797381500928

<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=mobile.twitter.com/warcholmondley" target="_blank">Miles Cholmondley-Warnerr*

<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=mobile.twitter.com/warcholmondley" target="_blank">@warcholmondley Replying to <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=mobile.twitter.com/OwenJones84" target="_blank">@OwenJones84

"<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=mobile.twitter.com/OwenJones84" target="_blank">@owenjones84 has outdone himself with this chippy rant. Monroe Bergdorf exploited a role with <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=mobile.twitter.com/NSPCC" target="_blank">NSPCCC* for publicity, overstated it & broke agreements celebrities make with the Charity. It is right & no wonder that she has been cut away. For narcissism not flashing her tits"

Owen Jones looking to take on Janice Turner
Bluestitch · 10/06/2019 09:03

OJ is such a hypocrite. Ranting about the NSPCC and listing alternative charities for kids. Did he rant at Labour and list alternative political parties to vote for when they axed MB? Doubt it.

Justhadathought · 10/06/2019 09:54

I worship JT, but think she has slightly wrong footed herself by majoring on MB's 'porn' life, rather than on their disregard for normal safeguarding and their homophobia and cruel comments regarding infertility

I agree. that's the problem with twitter. Too influenced by impulse and not enough consideration.

RoyalCorgi · 10/06/2019 09:59

I think the porn comment was entirely reasonable. I don't suppose Janice Turner was aware that Melinda Messenger had done work for Childline - why would she be? The choice of someone like Messenger is also pretty inappropriate, I'd have thought.

As for Owen, well, he's like a male version of Violet Elizabeth Bott, isn't he? He's going to thcweam and thcweam and thcweam until he's thick.

CharlieParley · 10/06/2019 11:00

GirlDownUnder This makes it much worse. Worse than it appeared at first.

After a string of failed appointments, due to previous public utterances or actions, many others seeking a public role would be desperate, too, to be held in high regard. Bergdorf had a chance here to support one of the UK's most prominent child safeguarding charities. All that was required was to keep the ego in check, see it through and prove one's reliability to the charity which could have led to a supportive role that was much more in the public eye.

Bergdorf is not the first and won't be the last of those striving for public roles to be felled by their own checkered history (cf political candidates and decades-past drug use or writers with damaging tweets from five years ago). But right about now an expert in PR may well be a recommended course of action for Bergdorf. Of course, as the end goal is queering society, I'm not sure that would help. Society is not ready to give up on safeguarding our children and no amount of PR and marketing expertise can make that palatable.

As for the porn model comment.

Yes, it is more significant that Bergdorf has repeatedly and publicly demonstrated complete and utter ignorance on the principles of safeguarding (I refer you back to LangCleg's excellent post) and the specifics of safeguarding (cf the lack of understanding that a ten-year-old boy performing sexually suggestive dance moves in sexualized outfits in sex-on-premises night clubs is a safeguarding failure of the highest order) and the necessity of safeguarding (Bergdorf's stated belief that this is a harmless act of self-realisation for the child shows complete ignorance also of how fragile children's minds are, how highly suggestible, how damaging it is to immerse a child in these kinds of adult spheres of life. If you do not recognise when a child is exploited for adult entertainment, I would suggest you should stay as far away from a safeguarding organisation as possible.)

But I agree with Janice that posing for an admittedly soft porn mag is hugely relevant for a person's suitability in being involved with a safeguarding charity, eespecially when that person has paid thousands of pounds to look like a pornified version of a woman and especially when the person in question has also demonstrated all of the above.

Yes, others have posed for porn mags and been involved with safeguarding campaigns, but AFAIK none of them were openly dismissive of safeguarding failures and therefore of the wellbeing of children and none of them had demonstrated such a comprehensive lack of understanding of the safeguarding of children.

And soft porn is still porn btw.

ScrimshawTheSecond · 10/06/2019 11:13

So, MB wasn't 'dropped' because MB wasn't on board in any real way in the first place.

Inventing a role for oneself and then crying foul because one has been disallowed from taking up that imaginary role.

BatShite · 10/06/2019 11:16

Seems J is willing to overlook actual homophobia (Cannot really be denied) along with a hell of a lot of other issues, in order to be on the 'right side of history'. Hes really deluded himself on this issue huh..

Whatisthisfuckery · 10/06/2019 11:19

OJ is so addled he doesn’t know what he thinks. He’s so consumed by misogyny that he probably doesn’t care about the odd gay bashing, as long as it isn’t him. He’s an odious little fuckwit and I just can’t resist the opportunity to poke the little shit on twitter. Hopefully he’ll block me so I don’t have to read his sanctimonious ejaculations anymore.

Haworthia · 10/06/2019 11:25

So, what I don’t understand is... what WAS the affiliation because Munroe and the NSPCC?

JackyHolyoake · 10/06/2019 11:27

I think the problem here may be that some people are only capable of seeing the transitioner as a "vulnerable" person rather than the wider context of a situation.

This happened earlier this year, when some people only saw an American transitioner as a "vulnerable" person rather than the fuller context of a person who was working to eliminate the rights of women and girls in America.

ScrimshawTheSecond · 10/06/2019 11:28

Aye, Haworthia, it's all a bit of a mystery.

RedToothBrush · 10/06/2019 11:37

A Journalist v a Columnist...

... Get your popcorn, someone is gonna get his arse whooped.

RoyalCorgi · 10/06/2019 12:09

A Journalist v a Columnist

One slightly curious element of OJ's hounding of Turner for working for a right-wing paper is that she is the daughter-in-law of the late Guardian editor, Peter Preston. Preston was very highly thought of by the Guardian staff and in journalist circles generally. One suspects that OJ is a little jealous of her connection to Guardian royalty. (Apart from which, she has much strong working-class credentials than he does - her mum was an actual cleaner, rather than a teacher - which must be very galling for him.)

RedToothBrush · 10/06/2019 12:47

I suspect there is an awful amount of insecurity and inadequacy going on here.

Owen gets off on attention seeking. Turner gets awards.

OrchidInTheSun · 10/06/2019 12:52

His mum is a university lecturer, not a teacher. Can't get more middle class than an academic

Floisme · 10/06/2019 12:57

I normally love a good Twitter spat but a keyboard battle about the safeguarding and welfare of children just feels all kinds of off to me. I think on this occasion, Janice Turner is wise to stay silent. The more Owen Jones sounds off, the more he shows his ignorance.

Alsohuman · 10/06/2019 12:59

I wish OJ hadn’t blocked me on Twitter so I could watch this play out.

RedToothBrush · 10/06/2019 13:07

Janice knows that when Owen starts screeching, it's cos she's scored a hit. She doesn't need to engage. Mr 1984 wants her to engage because if she does she is following his narrative and is getting into the realms of comment rather than sticking to the story and following the issue.

This is largely where the media has failed over the last 10 years. The more the likes of Guardian and the BBC have indulged in 'personality news' aka comment - which is generally cheaper because its less labour and lawyer intensive the more the media has weaken in its role of holding power to account.

So when you hear the wails of Jones, you know its because actual journalism has been doing its job.

Jones generates income from clicks. He needs attention from clicks otherwise he has no career and no income. He is the product, and he has to try and stay relevant because he's the marketable thing. Not an issue.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 10/06/2019 13:17

He gets very tetchy when journalists remind him that he's paid to write an OPINIONS column and has no background, training or experience of reporting, investigating, or fact-checking.

I just really like this being pointed out. And repeated. As much as possible.

R0wantrees · 10/06/2019 14:03

cf

Flying Monkeys (The Narcissist’s Tool for the Smear Campaign)
by Inner Integration
May 13, 2018
(extract)

"So the role of these flying monkeys is first of all abuse by proxy.
Abuse by proxy is when the narcissist gets other people to abuse you. That way the narcissist gets to abuse you but through these people. They’ll reject you, they’ll make you feel not good enough, they’ll shame you, maybe they’ll put you in a bad situation, they’ll tell you that you’re crazy, things like that. This way the narcissist looks like the one that’s clean. They’re not involved.
The flying monkeys are also used to spread rumors and gossip.
This is one of their most prevalent roles. They are addicted to gossip. Usually these people go around and spread rumors and gossip that they heard.

Flying monkeys do the narcissist’s bidding. That’s what the smear campaign is, is they’ll do whatever the narcissist wants. The narcissist wants them to go out and talk badly about you and spread lies about you or the narcissist wants them to outright abuse you or to make you feel like you don’t belong. Or maybe they invite you to a place where they know something horrible is gonna happen for you and you’re not going to be comfortable there, those sorts of things.

Flying monkeys make the narcissist feel like they’re important and special. They help the narcissist feel like they’re grandiose, like they have high status, like they’re famous or a celebrity, which is what the narcissist wants to feel. Narcissists often have a whole entourage around them just like a celebrity needs an entourage in order to feel secure about themselves.

So who can become flying monkeys?
There are two different categories of people.

The first category is the naive.
The naive are people who are just clueless. They can’t see it, they can’t fathom it, they’ve never been through anything like that, so they can’t even imagine that somebody would do such a thing to just make up all these lies about you and spread them across town. They just can’t even fathom that a human would do that or maybe the naive is also the fawning type.

This is the type of people who when faced with a fight or flight dilemma, they choose fawning instead where they just melt into into a strong, dominant personality to feel safe and they don’t realize what’s happening. You might have noticed that even you became one of these flying monkeys when you were in your naive state before you woke up, before you figured out what was going on.

The second category of people who can become flying monkeys are the toxic.
These are the people with no boundaries. They love gossip and drama, they’re addicted to that stuff. They have an integrity problem and usually they want something from the narcissist. They want status, they want flattery, they want favours. They’re getting something out of the narcissist, which is why they’re willing to do their bidding." (continues)

medium.com/@OwnYourReality/flying-monkeys-the-narcissists-tool-for-the-smear-campaign-798daf7a59c0

Fascinating to see who's coming out all guns blazing (& without having considered the situation) for Munroe Bergdorf.

BlooperReel · 10/06/2019 14:13

I wish OJ hadn’t blocked me on Twitter so I could watch this play out.

If you log out of twitter, you can view public accounts such a Little OJ's ;)

Swipe left for the next trending thread