Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Fair Cop dropping hints on Twitter

931 replies

teawamutu · 24/07/2020 08:38

About something big about to happen to a red organisation beginning with 'S' that they won't like.

V unfair to vaguetweet IMO Grin - anyone else seen it?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
DialSquare · 09/08/2020 00:22

I don't think I could manage greens on top of all that popcorn..

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 09/08/2020 00:23

Floral, can you see into my house? Can you smell things over the internet? Confused

Okay. Off to bed. Don't anybody bring down the patriarchy without telling me.

Night, all. x

OvaHere · 09/08/2020 00:25

@Iwant2beJKRwhenIgrowUp

I think you really have to reflect on the implications of this.

A report about a British Court ruling is being edited/diluted by Mermaids input, for the actual curriculum that will be taught to A-Level Law Students.

Whoa!

That is wrong on so many levels.

Yes.

This is what I posted on the other thread

It's not an easy article to follow unfortunately. Probably because the subject matter is a bit dry. However it's actually quite disturbing if I've understood correctly.

Mermaids at the invitation of Hatchette decided that students should not be allowed to read the complete ruling of a high court judge because they didn't like it. So they censored/changed it to suit them better.

It's yet another huge red flag about censorship and democracy.

FusionChefGeoff · 09/08/2020 00:32

The headline is terrible - I have no idea what it means and I'm pretty intelligent usually!

TinselAngel · 09/08/2020 00:32

I have loved this thread 😘

TehBewilderness · 09/08/2020 00:36

@FusionChefGeoff

The headline is terrible - I have no idea what it means and I'm pretty intelligent usually!
It is click bait. They could have said Hatchette and been clear, but they used Jo Rowling's name to get more hits.
BitOfFun · 09/08/2020 00:40

Again, why are Hachette doing this? To claw back Brownie points with the blue-haired?

CharlieParley · 09/08/2020 00:43

@Horehound

I don't have a clue what is going on. Can someone explain what the big deal about this is :s
A-level Law includes learning about legal rulings. What was the case, what did either side argue, what was the judgement. Complicated but important and topical legal cases summarised for the study material.

Factual summaries. Next to no editorialising beyond that necessary to explain the case (like putting it in context).

In older cases, this would include information about significant consequences of a judgement in the following years (or cases).

The publisher of the course decided on this occasion that reporting on the actual facts of the case and the actual judgement was offensive, so asked a lobbying organisation firmly aligned with the losing side of the legal case to rewrite the summary to suit themselves.

Unashamedly and unapologetically censoring teaching material on an important judgement involving Free Speech. In a case now bound for the Supreme Court.

WootMoggie · 09/08/2020 00:46

It needs a re-write.

Here's my attempt. All I've done is re-order the paragraphs, glued it back together and then given it a new headline.

Hopefully this makes a bit more sense:

Chairman of A-Level Law Review Magazine Resigns Due to Mermaids 'Censorship'

A senior figure at a magazine for A Level law students has resigned in protest at a Mermaids review of an article which he claimed had "effectively destroyed it".

Ian Yule, the Chairman of the Editorial Board, protested to the publisher that he had not introduced personal opinions in the article, which was intended to update A-level pupils and their teachers on the court ruling.

“This article contained little or no commentary by me, and no comments whatsoever on the issue of transgenderism,” he said. “My article did not express my own thoughts or beliefs but was a straightforward and accurate report of a High Court judgment.”

He added: “If the judgment of a respected High Court judge is likely to upset such students and their teachers, they have no business studying or teaching this subject.”

The publisher, Hachette UK, invited the transgender activist group Mermaids to review the magazine article, which summarised a High Court test case on freedom of expression. The case made headlines in February when the judge likened police to the Gestapo or the Stasi for the way they responded to Harry Miller, 55, a businessman accused of sending transphobic tweets on social media.

In its justification for the intervention, a Hodder editor told him: “The claimant’s [Harry Miller’s] views and the judge’s [Mr Justice Julian Knowles’s] comments about transgender issues would be offensive to most of our readers and our staff.”

Humberside police visited Miller’s place of work and told him his tweets would be recorded as a “non-crime hate incident”. They included a poem about transgender people and one saying: “I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don’t mis-species me.”

Management at Hodder Education, part of Hachette UK, referred the article on the ruling to Mermaids, asking it to suggest “examples we can use to counteract the tone and opinions in the piece” and to suggest changes to “anything you feel is untrue, unfair and/or offensive”.

Hachette UK is also JK Rowling’s publisher. Some of its staff have objected to working on her children’s story, The Ickabog, because they dislike her views on gender.

In response to the invitation to suggest changes, the head of legal and policy at Mermaids sent four closely typed pages, including a comment that the article “doesn’t come over as balanced”.

Even before this, Hodder had heavily edited the court report, removing two-thirds of the original, explaining: “We also have to be very careful how we present certain views.”

Yule, 72, who had chaired the board for nine years, said the publisher’s behaviour was “far beyond parody” because at the time of the dispute Rowling — its star author — had come under attack for challenging the use of the phrase “people who menstruate” instead of women.

Daniel Radcliffe, who became a child star playing Harry Potter in the films of Rowling’s books, was among those who turned on her, stating: “Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people.”

When editorial staff threatened to stop work on her new fairytale, The Ickabog, Hachette released a statement on June 16 intended to define the boundaries of when it was valid to involve personal beliefs at work.

It said: “Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of publishing. We fundamentally believe that everyone has the right to express their own thoughts and beliefs.”

Five days earlier, James Benefield, a senior executive at Hodder, had sent Yule the Mermaids review and told him: “Mermaids have requested quite a few changes here. It is important we do follow all of the attached advice — not only is it from a trans-specialist organisation, it is also from the company lawyer who felt they were best placed to review the piece.”

He stated that it was “an issue of balance rather than of censorship or freedom of speech” and made a mysterious reference to “various occurrences in other things we’ve published”.

Another member of the editorial board, Andrew Mitchell, suggested in vain that one way out of the impasse was for A-Level Law Review to pioneer “trigger warnings” about articles that some students might find offensive and provide “safe spaces” for students by providing independent sources of advice at the end of potentially hard-hitting articles.

Harry Miller said the episode showed transgender activists have no respect for the law “because unless you go 100% along with what they want, anything less is not good enough”.

Hodder said: “In editorial disputes, it is good practice to go to an external body for a second opinion. We approached a couple of organisations for this. [Yule] chose not to engage with the Mermaids review or, for the most part, our edits. We work with many different organisations and individuals to review content, including authors, academics, charities and special interest groups.”

OvaHere · 09/08/2020 00:47

Excellent breakdown @CharlieParley

Portnlemon · 09/08/2020 00:54

I can just imagine the quality of the four pages from the Mermaid's legal bod if mimmymum's bonkers squawking on Twitter is anything to go by.

OldCrone · 09/08/2020 00:55

In its justification for the intervention, a Hodder editor told him: “The claimant’s [Harry Miller’s] views and the judge’s [Mr Justice Julian Knowles’s] comments about transgender issues would be offensive to most of our readers and our staff.”

How can they know what would be offensive to most of their readers? The article was for A-level students who would be expected to have a range of views on politics and other topics. It's not like a newspaper making assumptions about their readership.

Portnlemon · 09/08/2020 00:56

And what relevance has a children's charity to a to judicial review of College of Policing guidelines?

OvaHere · 09/08/2020 00:57

I wondered that. As trans lobby groups go Mermaids isn't even the relevant one to this piece of case law - it has nothing to do with children.

Aesopfable · 09/08/2020 00:59

Well there you go, a legal judgement is declared offensive to transideologues and therefore meets the SNPs test as a Hate Crime. Justice Knowles had better be careful with his judgements least he’s faces seven years imprisonment....

CharlieParley · 09/08/2020 01:02

Thank you.

I should have added that

The publisher internally decided to censor a factual report about a judgement on a human rights case about Freedom of Expression at the same time as they publicly defended the human right to everyone's Freedom of Expression on the very same issue.

Duplicitous and hypocritical.

But I hadn't read WootMoggie's excellent rewrite yet and only the very muddled original so I forgot about that rather important aspect.

PastMyBestBeforeDate · 09/08/2020 01:05

Are there any other areas where it is deemed appropriate for a support/pressure group to rewrite legal rulings for law student consumption? How will that work in the real world when a lawyer quotes sanitised law that doesn't match actual law?

PumbaasCucumbas · 09/08/2020 01:11

When someone studies law, surely they’re at some point going to read some pretty shocking and potentially upsetting things... if verbatim court proceedings need to be adapted for certain delicate sensibilities, I don’t see how these people could study or practice law... it’s a bit like studying medicine but avoiding the reproductive system because it’s too triggering.

Datun · 09/08/2020 02:42

The publisher internally decided to censor a factual report about a judgement on a human rights case about Freedom of Expression at the same time as they publicly defended the human right to everyone's Freedom of Expression on the very same issue.

Hmm. To channel my inner Mrs Merton, what was the motivation to defend something you'd just condemned when it suddenly involves your best selling author?

Datun · 09/08/2020 02:43

If Ian Yule has resigned could he publish his article against the censored one now?

That would make interesting reading.

Cailleach1 · 09/08/2020 04:30

I wonder if they often or ever normally approach the person/organisation against whom the judgement went for a re-write like this.

On another note, in fairness, Hachette UK don't even pretend to have any regard for sex when it comes to their policy for diversity and inclusion. Protected characteristic in UK?

Hachette UK aims to be the publisher and employer of choice for all people, regardless of age, faith, disability, race, gender, sexuality or socio-economic background.

xxyzz · 09/08/2020 04:42

@WootMoggie

Thanks for the rewrite. But I still have to take issue with your headline and opening paragraphs.

The significance of the case is not primarily that Mermaids, a lobbying organisation, rewrote the article.

The main issue is that Hachette, a major publisher which was at exactly that point publicly proclaiming it supported its leading author, JK Rowling over free speech on trans issues decided to gut and censor...an article describing a judgement on free speech over trans issues.

The real villains of this piece are not Mermaids, who just did what Mermaids do and what they had been brought in by Hachette to do. They are a lobby group, they lobbied. No surprises there.

The real story is that a major publisher already in massive hot water over free speech decided to censor the law in a publication designed to summarise the law for future lawyers and lawmakers.

And to censor a judgement specifically accusing those who censored free speech on this issue as being like fascists or the Stasi!

That they got a lobby group in that represents the losing side in the case only adds insult to injury.

But it is Hachette who have the shit sticking to them on this. Mermaids are just the cherry on the top.

Cailleach1 · 09/08/2020 05:36

In my personal opinion, if 'The Times' article is true (and I cannot presume to know either way), an educational provider would not just knowingly, but also actively be seeking to provide students with compromised educational material; for political and ideological reasons.

Of course, there may not be one iota of truth in it and in that case we can hopefully look forward to a statement (maybe even legal action) denying such a scurrilous accusation of meddling with the facts, and a lack of integrity. I hope it is not true as it would have serious implications for education and society if school books were, deliberately, inaccurate and untruthful.

Out of interest, and as an aside, I see Hodder do Science and Biology books.

xxyzz · 09/08/2020 05:42

Strange post.

Why would the Times article not be true? You think they wouldn't face a massive libel if not true? The Times will have checked this with their lawyers. They wouldn't be publishing otherwise.

Cailleach1 · 09/08/2020 05:52

You may state as you wish. Free speech an' all. I don't want to break any rules. We live in strange times.

I clearly said we may look forward to legal action (by Hachette/Hodder) if it was untrue. Mind you, it may be that any unfavourable ruling may not be faithfully represented in their schools books.

Swipe left for the next trending thread