Police called to National Theatre to deal with gender critical feminists sitting on chairs

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

twitter.com/DadRogd/status/1147181198231429124 has picture of the unfortunate police officer sent to investigate.

Earlier in his tweet thread he says:

National Theatre Green Room bar just refused to serve us. Their grounds? Allegedly, we are a political group with views a member of staff finds offensive. So they offend a dozen customers instead.

Problem is apparently with t-shirt worn by Anne Ruzylo sporting a dictionary definition of a lesbian. As someone else has pointed out the NT is in breach of the Equality Act, given that sexual orientation and sex are both protected characteristics. I wonder how this will play out.

Looking it up the Arts & Media correspondent writes news not opinion.

I think the National Theatre have behaved very badly here. But not surprising, as their neighbours at the BFI, of course, also have form.

Of course we can't prove it Batshite. One way or the other. Hence it's libellous as I originally said.

By my understanding, its only libelous if it can be proved false. Either way, its my opinion and am standing by it. IMO, its highly unlikely the 'mistake' was actually a mistake, and various circumstances make it seem purposeful to not get any quote from Anne to write a biased article for the guardian. However leave ones self with an out (albeit a suspicious one) so innocence can be claimed as mistake.

Yes your absolutely entitled to that opinion. But I think you could argue the other way with no difficulty. I'm not convinced that there is a motivation to be suspicious other than confirmation bias.

Btw what are the "various circumstances"?

It's a bit like guilty until proven innocent. But as we're not in a court of law, you can decide that's a fair way to think.

Btw what are the "various circumstances"?

Mainly the fact that she had alrady quoted from the real Annes twitter feed, so knew the username, but then went onto use a fake one to 'contact' her.

Then, instead of admitting the obvious mistake, just replied to Anne while still using the fake name in the post to try and claim innocence.

Its just rather unbelievable that anyone would be that dim.

Apologies if the journalist actually is dim, rather than sly.

It's a bit like guilty until proven innocent..

Well not quite. I tend to come from the start point of people are genuine. Its only when other things start adding up that I change a little based on circumstances. Certainly do not have a starting point of guilty until proven innocent.

Given that:

• there were no placards actually at the bar
• there is no evidence of them disturbing anyone

I ver much doubt the veracity of any part of the article.

The only truthful bit is that some lesbians were thrown out of the NT bar

But isn't most of the article based on the journalist speaking to the National Theatre? That being the problem? That because of the fuck up with the communication with Anne there was no comment from the other side? My main gripe with the piece is that it didn't say that Anne had not replied and an attempt had been made to contact her.

When I was clicking on links to test what might have happened BatShite the exact same thing happened to me, as happened to the journalist which led to my incorrect assertion upthread. Obviously, I'm not a journalist. But I'm also not pushed for time trying to put out an online article for a national newspaper with totally different deadlines to a printed paper. I also take issue that that meant they were dim. Rather than careless. However, if you assert they are dim I'm sure you could argue that it is fair comment.

Anyway, I'm not expecting to convince anyone otherwise. It's just my opinion.

Fair enough, we shall agree to disagree

I kind of think journalists should pay a bit more attention to detail though, when contacting people for quotes on articles..if this was a genuine mistake where the journalist in question accidentally asked an obvious parody account with a couple of followers for comment, and did not realise this at all. Even if 'pushed for time'..its kind of their job. Maybe not when doing guardian articles though, seems the aim is to be as one sided as possible..absolutely so not make sure anyone GC gets any say!

Maybe I am too cynical. Its been mentioned before

We can certainly agree that it's good to be cynical. Bit knackering though it is.

BatShite
In my opinion there's no such thing as being too cynical. Not when it relates to extremely dodgy reporting on "anti trans issues"
The women were refused service because of the slogans on their t shirts, I've seen plenty of videos on FB that confirm that there were no posters in sight and no harassment from any of the women.
Actual footage from women that were there, this is grade A first class homophobia against Lesbian women.
The National Theatre are a disgrace, I really hope that someone in the group is able to take this further. I'd be very supportive of any crowdfunding

The first bit of London I knew well when I was a child was the bfi, or National Film Theatre, my dad taking me to kids films and classic films. Then, in my teens, I went to the National Theatre a lot. Both now tainted.

The Guardian reporter, Vanessa Thorpe, used an incorrect Twitter handle to a fake account to ask Anne Ruzylo to contact her

I figure that was done on purpose. Why would there be a random I in the middle of the username?

I'm not a journalist and I don't use Twitter. It took me 2 seconds to find Anne's Twitter account.

But then you knew already that it was Anne Ruzylo to look for.

But then you knew already that it was Anne Ruzylo to look for.

As did the journalist though. Given she managed to quote an actal tweet from Annes account in the same article? Odd, again, that the fake account happened to be used for comment, while the real account happened to be found for the quote, and nothing was noticed there? If the journalist seriously thought it was sargesaI*with an I, not a L)ute for the handle, then surely..the only quotes she would have found from them would be 'transwomen are women' from 2018. And obviously when looking for the quote, would have realised at that stage that the name she was using was indeed wrong.

I think this will be my last comment on the fake account thing, as its getting a bit repetetive now and I do realise that. But..it really does seem fairly obvious whats gone on here to me.

But then you knew already that it was Anne Ruzylo to look for

So did the journalist.

I meant the journalist would have had to have found that Anne Ruzylo and Sargesalute were the same person. Where did you get that that was in common knowledge? I didn't

I don't even know if either Sargesalute or Anne Razulo were named by either the police or the National Theatre.

*Anne Ruzylo

I meant the journalist would have had to have found that Anne Ruzylo and Sargesalute were the same person.

She quoted the real Anne Ruyzlos twitter post in the article. Yet contacted the fake one for comment somehow. Makes no sense, as quoting the real one shows she knew which account was Annes.

To clarify; was Anne Ruzylo or indeed Sargesalute mentioned in the original National Theatre statement?

You quote a twitter handle in copy by typing it out. You click on the false link to tweet them.

Have you never emailed someone and made a typo in the address? And it pings back to you? But then had no problem clicking on a reply link but n an email in subsequent correspondence? I'm not on twitter but I imagine it's similar.