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.

I'm not sure this speculation is useful. It is speculation.

I'm often on the Westminsterenders threads and am constantly aware of the possibility there of seeing conspiracy there. It doesn't seem to me to really serve any good purpose to be open to accusations of something verging on paranoia.

The initial article linked above struck me as having faults, possibly down to bad subbing but not some great conspiracy. Not this time.

As, I say, I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me.

I think people don't really have a very good grasp on what a journalist writing on a national newspaper involves.

Given people who are journalists have also posted saying this woman is bad at her job if is was a 'mistake'(though I do give her more scope if it was intentiaonal and she was basically told by bosses to do that..which is possible)..I really don't think thats the issue. I think its possibly, that for some reason you are desperate to prove that..not checking sources and messageing the wrong people for quotes and such..means shes actually good at her job? I don't know. I disagree 100%, which will shock noone.

TRAs are already annoyed with the article as they think it hasn't stressed the "transphobia" enough.

Oh I didn't see any posts posted by people who are journalists on national newspapers. My mistake

Or presumably Vanessa has an existing professional relationship with the NT and this is just a sleazy quid pro quo. Allow the NT to define the story unchallenged and they'll show you favouritism in the future.

Quite. I think its likely its something like that, rather than it was a 'mistake' or shes just..bad. Not saying its definitely that tobee, don't worry! But yeah, its more likely.

I didn't say they were good at their job did I? I said sloppy I believe.

TRAs are already annoyed with the article as they think it hasn't stressed the "transphobia" enough.

Nothing is ever good enough for TRAs..I think we know that already
Its bloody ridiculous, the article is 100% in their favour due to the fucking lies, yet its still not good enough..usual.

tobee it may be speculation but the plain fact is Vanessa slandered a bunch of women by repeating lies, without even the most basic of checks, from an organisation that had breached the Equality Act by its homophobic behaviour. And it wasn’t just Anne who was discriminated against due to her sexuality but all the women who were refused service.

I didn't say they were good at their job did I? I said sloppy I believe.

But you seem to be getting annoyed at people saying the same thing? Sloppy=bad really in journalism.

I'm not worried thanks. I'm just like to check and re check my thinking. That's why I post on here. To have people say where I'm wrong in my conclusion. And then I immediately admit I'm wrong. I thought that's what most people did.

Oh I didn't see any posts posted by people who are journalists on national newspapers. My mistake

You don't have to be a journalist on a national newspaper to realise that your story is complete bunkum and there are photos and videos that actually show that your words are fake.

No. The thing I don't see is the "deliberate" use of wrong Twitter account

Maybe I have an outdated idealised view of journalism based on All The President’s Men and The Post but I thought the idea was research a story, check your facts, then write it up.

You seem very invested tobee.

The thing I don't see is the "deliberate" use of wrong Twitter account

Sure, there's no proof of that. However, the journalist works for a newspaper with a proven track record in omitting relevant facts from articles to present a trans-friendly version. So when this journalist makes a mistake that means one side's version isn't presented in their article, I'm past the point of giving the benefit of the doubt in favour of The Guardian/Observer.

I expect a journalist writing for a national newspaper to understand that the real story isn't always the one that the establishment want you to hear, to check their facts before submitting and, in the event of making a schoolgirl error (which we all do sometimes) to move heaven and earth to redress it as soon as possible.

If journalists have forgotten this then I think they're the ones who are out of touch; and dangerously so because without these basic principles, what exactly is the point of them?

Online editions of newspapers often update their editions as the day progresses. And yet, despite it having been more than 24 hours since this 'story' (in the fictional account sense of the word, rather than the reportage one) was published and hundreds of people contacting Vanessa - including Anne herself - the online account has not been updated.

Why do you think that might be tobee

Maybe I have an outdated idealised view of journalism based on All The President’s Men and The Post but I thought the idea was research a story, check your facts, then write it up.

No you don't have an idealised or romantised idea of journalism.

It's just a slide in standards of journalism that has occurred with less revenue to be made from it coupled with more money to be made from opinions and commercial affiliations and commercially driven editorial lines.

This is also compounded with fewer people churning out content for an era of instant news which means that fact checking isn't done as people cut corners to get the story out first. And that's the priority; being the first not being accurate.

There is a market and demand for quality journalism but it's expensive and too many people simply don't care, preferring to read what matches their social media echo chamber rather than be challenged with reading something which might test the strength of belief in their world view. Until of course, something comes along that shafts them and they NEED proper journalism to hold power to account.

It's all the product of media revolution with 'fake news' being a stage in the development of the pressing press when it first appeared, which is being repeated due to the explosion of social media.

This is an example of the press trying to stay relevant and trying to pretend they have credibility when a journalist has royally fucked up, and it's glaringly obvious and people have noticed.

A thought for you: for every story you've seen like this which has been appalling in how it's been reported, how many stories have you read and believed, as you've not been party to the background and not been interested in checking it yourself?

This is a symptom of wider press issues rather than a conspiracy in its own right IMHO.

In the press the likes of the BBC and the newspapers had real pride in taking time to get a story right. Now it's just about keeping up with the competition, and speed is viewed as the thing that will ensure their survival.

Personally I think this is a real mistake, and it's merely eroding trust in the media which is the thing that makes its special and gave value.

You seem very investedtobee

And coming up with fairly implausible counter arguments.

Has anyone involved contacted the section editor to ask for a correction?

Maybe because it's an Observer paper and journalist's might have a Sunday off?

It's more a case of constantly arguing my point than being over invested. Every now and then I post on Mumsnet with an argument that most other posters disagree with. I keep going with my point if I still agree with it, and don't feel people have changed my mind. On the rare occasions I do this I don't want to "run away" from a thread as posters are often accused of doing. I certainly know that I'll get robust replies on this board in particular. Mostly, I learn a lot. That's why I keep coming back.

Also I have a tendency, like a lot of people, to be emotional in my opinions and value being pulled up on that.

No. The thing I don't see is the "deliberate" use of wrong Twitter account

Well yeah fair enough, we have already done that dance so..

But its not people saying it was deliberate you are arguing against. Its anyone who is saying that this is basically, if not deliberate, someone who is either crap at their job or..has been told to purposely get only one side. You seem to have an issue with people saying this also? When once the possibility of it being deliberate has gone..this is the only real possibility left. Shes crap at being a journalist, or has done her job as been told, in which case itf proof that 'journalism' has gone waaaay downhill.

Maybe because it's an Observer paper and journalist's might have a Sunday off?

But the mistakes were brought up yesterday, right after she posted to the real Anne while using the fake accounts handle also.

Ah come on really..the endless excuses are hilarious really

The I newspaper has repeated the placard point