Fair Cop dropping hints on Twitter

[teawamutu]

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

V unfair to vaguetweet IMO - anyone else seen it?

Mind you, it may be that any unfavourable ruling may not be faithfully represented in their schools books.

That is the primary concern, innit?

Er...right. Just sounded like you were trying to cast doubt on the article. Which was fairly forthright on the facts.

I agree that Hachette's response will be what matters.

Will we see more apologies and avowals of standing up for free speech?

Or, as I think more likely, a world-class attempt to ignore the story and hope no-one understood the significance of the article.

Depends in large part of it gets picked up by the Mail and other papers.

Was to @Cailleach1

So sinister. More sunlight for this nonsense.

I'm a little disappointed, truth be told. I thought the original spoiler was for some good news. While it's interesting, shocking, and is another helpful dose of sunlight, I wouldn't call this article good news.

Hmmm, am still trying to figure out the implications. Thanks for the summaries and analysis here, as I have to say that the article didn’t get to the meat of the matter very effectively.

The concept of trigger warnings for studying law is boggling. You’d have to wallpaper them across every part of criminal law and probably tort/delict, medical law, ethics and anything relating to human and children’s rights as well. You’d probably be safe in the drier reaches of jurisprudence or European law, but you’d need trigger warning for boredom instead I dare say.

I hope JKR changes publishers.
Meanwhile no comments on the Times piece yet. I'm tempted to copy over some explanatory notes from here.

@FannyCann

I hope JKR changes publishers. Meanwhile no comments on the Times piece yet. I'm tempted to copy over some explanatory notes from here.

I doubt that the Hachette upper echelon were aware of this happening. Their imprints on the whole operate independently. I think it was over-reach of a super-woke editor, who was trying too hard to be sensitive. But that's my personal opinion.

Finally, the first comments are appearing. I wonder if they are being censored as they are published, and if these first two will disappear?

What a bizarre episode - and not in a good way. I'm reminded of the trial over 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' and the jury being asked if this was a book they would want their wife or servants reading. I presume these students won't be exposed to that case. Or Nuremberg.

I doubt that the Hachette upper echelon were aware of this happening. Their imprints on the whole operate independently. I think it was over-reach of a super-woke editor, who was trying too hard to be sensitive.

Completely agree with Lamahaha. Hodder Education is a whole different structure and decision-making chain to the ‘trade’ divisions (i.e. general books, rather than academic or professional). It would be a huge over-reaction for JKR to go elsewhere - I suspect the upper board will be pretty pissed off at this in conjunction with the JKR stance on free speech they’ve taken.

If it was as reported, I would classify it as dodgy rather than sensitive. Misrepresentation ain't sensitivity. Also, deliberately placing such a version of the case in an educational resource would be dishonest.

The comments in the Times piece are interesting. Can't see any that support what the editor has done, wonder why?

I appreciate that there are nuances around departments/imprints/chains of command etc that would make JKR flouncing a remote possibility and she probably won’t but imagine the fun she could have threatening to as she’s a better and classier woman than I am, she probably won’t though.

And Josie Long has deleted all her tweets and there is comment about Jameela doing something or otherwise (haven’t quite caught up on all the twittersphere news). What could be happening out there?🤔

@SerenityNowwwww don't want to appear bloody ignorant (just because I am) but could you tell me who Josie Long and Jameela are and what the significance of their deletes are. Thanks

Isn’t that interesting? Josie Long is a comedian & Jameela is a celebrity, & they’re both very pro-transactivism.

It’s the timing - strange that people are stepping away from their support at this time.

Josie is a comedian and Jameela is an actor - both have been throwing anti woman slurs, their love for the mermaids etc. around on twitter.

Interesting re Josie Long, although tbf she could be making some sort of stand against being on Twitter itself which is an utter shitshow and I'm sure they're on the receiving end of all sorts of horrors.
She has definitely shown support for Mermaids on there in the past though.

Even when you make the argument that Mermaids could clearly do with a little scrutiny, because kids IDing as trans or GNC actually deserve a competent and ethical organisation NB monitors, I am not claiming that Mermaids are not either of these things just that this is the bare minimum of the general standards we should demand in such a service you get called a bigot or something.

I searched recently for the outcome of Mermaids' data leaking of their child client's confidential data, which was put, by Mermaids, onto a publicly accessible part of the internet and raised quite a few questions. Can't find any Information Commissioner's report as yet. The investigation had not concluded as of Oct 2019: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mermaids_charity_data_breach

Jameela told JKR to 'close mouth, open purse', after JK Rowling's essay on her experiences of domestic abuse.

It's something I think I would find very hard to forget.

People like that - if they ‘make a stand’ they will make bloody sure that everyone hears about it. Complete radio silence and dropping the row of little mermaids from profile?

I wonder if Emma Watson will continue to promote them?

I just realised I missed something in my initial read of the article, which, to be fair, was at midnight. It quotes the senior exec at Hodder referring to “various occurrences in other things we’ve published”. I wonder what these could be. Do Mermaids have a historical relationship with this publisher? Or perhaps another activist group like Stonewall has been involved in pre-publication reviews in the past.

If I was teaching A level law I’d use the text book plus the actual case as an example of how groups attempt to manipulate and why businesses allow this.

Thank you WootMoggie for explaining all of this because i was clueless. One thing i don't understand, if the article in this case had to butchered to be used as a case study for students (unless i have misunderstood) why use it at all? Why not just use other less contentious cases for students?