Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Times and Harry The Owl

160 replies

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 08/08/2020 22:11

Oh, well, this is interesting

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1292160071208706054

OP posts:
NoSquirrels · 09/08/2020 14:04

The ‘company lawyer’ referred to will be Hachette’s in-house legal advisor, rather than Mermaids. Sounds like the Hachette lawyer sent it to Mermaids, not the editor. Then the editor followed the legal advice. In-house legal in publishing companies are usually generalists a d deal in libel, IP matters etc and will farm out stuff to experts in their fields. It’s perfectly possible this is just a major fuck-up of not understanding the problematic nature of Mermaids - they’ve pitched themselves as ‘experts’ to loads of companies, rather than as lobbyists with an agenda. The in-house legal should have seen this is a wildly problematic set of advice to follow though and been hot on the free speech implications. It should never have got as far as it did with resignations etc.

ThePurported · 09/08/2020 14:14

YY Fanny the media side is interesting. Ipso members have basically agreed to conceal certain facts. Hence all the weird news stories about "women" committing crimes that are overwhelmingly committed by men.

Imnobody4 · 09/08/2020 14:22

The ‘company lawyer’ referred to will be Hachette’s in-house legal advisor, rather than Mermaids.
I think that's even worse. They should be expected to justify that advice.

ProfessorSlocombe · 09/08/2020 14:24

The really galling thing is that this has been warned about for years to a chorus of "don't be so dramatic".

Much like Covid-19 was in February.

Well, this is where we are now. And we can only go forwards, not back.

Whatisthisfuckery · 09/08/2020 15:08

Am I to understand that this article has already been published? I might have missed it but I got the impression that it has. If that is the case then where is this article? How can we get hold of it to see what has been written? It would be interesting to put it along side other articles of a similar nature, and to compare it to the wording of the ruling itself.

OvaHere · 09/08/2020 15:15

@Whatisthisfuckery

Am I to understand that this article has already been published? I might have missed it but I got the impression that it has. If that is the case then where is this article? How can we get hold of it to see what has been written? It would be interesting to put it along side other articles of a similar nature, and to compare it to the wording of the ruling itself.
I'm not 100% sure but I think this might be the magazine referenced. I don't know how often they publish or whether the article has already gone in.

If it is this publication there's a 7 day free trial.

www.hoddereducation.co.uk/subjects/law/products/16-18/a-level-law-review-emagazine-volume-15,-2019-20

Packingsoapandwater · 09/08/2020 15:34

Who on earth thought it was a good idea to get a controversial lobby group to review an article about a legal ruling where the audience was going to be A level law students?

What's next? We ask the flat earth society to review articles about space for A level physics students?

What the hell is going on?

NearlyGranny · 09/08/2020 15:36

Not any more, OvaHere! "Page not found"...

DadDadDad · 09/08/2020 15:37

The ‘company lawyer’ referred to will be Hachette’s in-house legal advisor, rather than Mermaids.

@NoSquirrels - I can't that is right based on the Sunday Times article - quote:

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”.

and

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.”

So I take it the "company lawyer" was the head of legal at Mermaids, ie the Hodder executive was emphasising it was not just from some PR person at Mermaids, but from their senior legal representative (and so presumably Hodder were too scared to argue with it).

OvaHere · 09/08/2020 15:38

That's weird. It still works for me. Try copy and pasting the link because it looks like the latter part of the code didn't work as a clicky link.

Packingsoapandwater · 09/08/2020 15:40

Is this article online anywhere? Was it ever published?

OvaHere · 09/08/2020 15:44

@Packingsoapandwater

Is this article online anywhere? Was it ever published?
I think it's the publication I posted above. The link doesn't seem to work for everyone so try C&P into your browser rather than clicking.

I don't actually know if it ever made it into the magazine.

ProfessorSlocombe · 09/08/2020 15:46

Who on earth thought it was a good idea to get a controversial lobby group to review an article about a legal ruling where the audience was going to be A level law students?

Well Intelligent Designers are still lobbying to be allowed to provide "balance" to the teaching of biology.

And Dara O'Briain has stated that astrologers were lobbying the BBC to appear on "Stargazing Live" to provide an "alternative view" to the science of planetary motion.

If you indulge these folk, you end up giving a mile.

SetYourselfOnFire · 09/08/2020 15:51

Patriciawentworth Sun 09-Aug-20 10:33:28
Hachette seem to have been seeking, with Mermaids, actually to conceal the law: to make it more difficult to find an analysis of the protections offered to free speech in the context of women’s rights. How often are they doing this in legal publications?

Right. I don't believe the "safe space" excuse. I think they were deliberately misinforming law students what the law actually says so it will influence them when they become actual lawyers.

hellandhairnets · 09/08/2020 16:36

So I take it the "company lawyer" was the head of legal at Mermaids, ie the Hodder executive was emphasising it was not just from some PR person at Mermaids, but from their senior legal representative (and so presumably Hodder were too scared to argue with it).

That's how I read it too. Highly unlikely to come from Hachette's legal bods especially as this was supposedly around the time of JKR saga and the CEO had made his feelings very clear. I honestly think it's serious editorial overreach by the unthinking woke at the lower levels that didn't have the oversight it should have. I wonder how the Times got the story?

stumbledin · 09/08/2020 16:48

Agree that for the Times it is a badly constructed article. Almost like someone did a cut and paste and put the paragraphs together in a haphazard way. Or the Times now think their readers dont want facts presently clearly and precisely but need gossip titbits in between.

So I have pulled out the paragraphs that seem to have the facts:

... JK Rowling’s publisher invited the transgender activist group Mermaids to review an article in a magazine for A-level law students, which summarised a High Court test case on freedom of expression.
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”.

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.”

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.”

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”. ...

DadDadDad · 09/08/2020 16:49

I wonder how the Times got the story?

Hmm, someone with access to the emails that went from Hodder to Ian Yule; a person who like Ian Yule is unhappy with Hodder's actions; a person who no longer has ties to Hodder and is old enough (say 72) that they are not worried about future career implications. I don't know, but I could guess. Wink

stumbledin · 09/08/2020 16:52

As Ian Yule is quoted in the article I assume they spoke to him, but whether he went to them first or they just followed up after someone leaked the story.

If they hadn't spoken to him direct I think they would have had to have writtenn something like Ian Yule is alleged to have said "..."

(I cant see comments have run out of free articles for the month - are they archived anywhere? Smile )

hellandhairnets · 09/08/2020 17:02

Indeed DadDadDad

Well, cat's out of the bag now...

It does make me wonder how many other "editorial changes" have been made of this nature, especially when it comes to the law. Many publishers (including legal ones) are Stonewall Champions, for instance.

Whatisthisfuckery · 09/08/2020 17:17

One does wonder why the article in The Times does not have extracts from the article as published if it significantly misrepresents the ruling, or omits so much that the ruling is made unclear. Also if they have spoken to the author in question who resigned, why do they not have extracts from his original article to contrast them against?

There is certainly something odd about the way this has been reported. I wonder if there’s more going on here than we are being told. Harry is rather excited about it, which would suggest there are things we are not being or cannot be told at the moment, for legal reasons maybe?

The Times are not usually known for unclear reporting, and they have not been shy about reporting issues related to trans, so I think there may be things that they aren’t allowed to tell us they aren’t telling us, if you catch my drift.

If you also consider that the BBC have just dropped Mermaids from their website, one could indeed speculate that there are law suits incoming that relate to Mermaids, the details of which are not allowed to be reported on yet.

sultanasofa · 09/08/2020 17:57

Having had a browse around the site, the A-Level Law Review Magazine comes out every 3 months. The issues are numbered as follows:
Volume 15 issue 1 (Sept 2019)
Volume 15 issue 2 (Jan 2020)
Volume 15 issue 3 (April 2020)
Volume 15 issue 4 (July 2020)
The covers and the contents can be seen for issues 1, 2 and 3 at the link above, but I cannot see issue 4.

Issue 3 contains the item 'Police powers' - could this be the Miller case?

It also contains the following under Editorial board:
Ian Yule (chairman)
Retired tutor in law, senior examiner

Looks like an interesting read! (IANAL...)

SickOfThisVirus · 09/08/2020 17:59

Issue 3 contains the item 'Police powers' - could this be the Miller case?

The judgment came out in February so that would also make sense in terms of timing.

SophocIestheFox · 09/08/2020 18:21

Do we know if the police or Fair Cop were approached for commentary to provide “balance”? Because if not, that’s a weird definition of balance. Maybe they took inspiration from the BBC. You’d have thought that if the inference is that the judge wasn’t neutral, you’d need to weigh up both sides and figure out how and why he wasn’t. But there I go again, with my antiquated notions of reasoning and logic. So last century.

EndoplasmicReticulum · 09/08/2020 18:40

I have not read the A level law Review but Hodder publish similar for other A level subjects. I used to get the Biology version for the school library and recommend it as additional reading for students. I don't subscribe any more - hope the Biological Sciences Review hasn't had a similar treatment and been clownfished!

NoSquirrels · 09/08/2020 20:34

@DadDadDad yes, reading again I see how your interpretation could be right - editor emphasising the advice from Mermaids is from their company lawyer therefore important.

But I can see it could be interpreted my way too by the author and sound as if Hodder in-house legal agree it is imperative to follow it. If I were the author actually the Hodder opinion would be the one I’d want - they are my publisher.

I guess I just can’t imagine a situation as an editor where you wouldn’t pass this issue via in-house legal too.

Both ways are bloody appalling, though.

Swipe left for the next trending thread