The Times and Harry The Owl

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

Oh, well, this is interesting

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1292160071208706054

In terms of publication schedule, both the April & July issues would almost certainly be already at press by the time the JKR ‘controversy’ blew up. That happened end May/early June and a July publication would have been signed off by then on most publication schedules.

It's been Rd-reported in the Daily Mail but it's a total rejig of the Times article with three pictures of jkr . It needs a short opinion piece with it saying basically "why TF was a lobby group editing how a case from the high Court judge is represented, so that snowflake students weren't offended by the truth?" as it needs summarising for most people.

it's a total rejig of the Times article with three pictures of jkr .

The problem with the Times article is that it makes JKR the focus on the story and then goes off talking about something which, to the uninitiated, is unrelated. JKR's involvement is an interesting but largely irrelevant detail. The reader would have been taken on a more coherent path had the article started with a summary of the Harry Miller case and then continued from there. JKR could have been mentioned at the end as an interesting aside.

Am I right in thinking that Mermaids "Head of Legal" is actually a quite young, quite wet-behind-the-ears, quite recently qualified and appointed 'non-binary' person?

It wise a shame for them if so, and they are at the helm when the shit is about to hit the fan for them.

Am I right in thinking that Mermaids "Head of Legal" is actually a quite young, quite wet-behind-the-ears, quite recently qualified and appointed 'non-binary' person?

That is my understanding.

Imagine being a young recently qualified lawyer and having the confidence to rewrite a high court judgement for publication because you don’t like what the highly qualified judge wrote.

I think their "enby" lawyer is early 30s. I wouldn't sleep well if I were "them".

Described as a "non-practicing solicitor" and "legal caseworker". I wonder if legal peeps are allowed to corrupt reports of high court cases, which will then be used to educate A Level law students?

Are they actually practicing? Some of the articles make it sound as though the role is more of a policy thing, not actually law.

Haha x post