Remember the I Heart JKR Poster (Edinburgh) that got loads of complaints...

[SaltandVinegarSquares]

According to Network Rail they "received complaints" (plural) about the poster, and one complaint specifically stated "rampant transphobia".

Only it turns out, they didn't.

Not a single fucking one.

Liars.

158 complaints about it's removal though.

@DianasLasso

The irony of all this is that the poster has achieved its goals through the very act of having removed amid an ‘argument’.

Posie is an absolute genius at publicity. She has a nose for the thing that will get her column inches in newspapers. I don't know how she does it, but I'm so grateful that she does.

This is what her opponents loathe most. But they just can’t resist taking the bait and revealing themselves for who they really are.

What they hate is the fact that the silent majority are behind her and every ‘Twitter storm’ hardens their opinion further.

What they hate is the fact that the silent majority are behind her and every ‘Twitter storm’ hardens their opinion further

The removal of an anodyne poster from a state run railway station because of 'complaints' on Twitter is an example of the fanaticism of the Robespierre faction.

Can I just say there's an I Heart JK sticker on a bin in my street. My little old street 400 miles from Edinburgh. My little street where nothing ever happens - and it's not even my bin! That gives me hope.

this topic is daft.

yes there were lots of idiots on Twitter complaining about them.

lots.

this can easily be verified.

they processed these people.

that's pretty normal

you tweet Sainsburys or whoever these days and they'll deal with what you've asked. it doesn't need to go via formal channels now.

this topic is daft.

Yet so many sensitive little souls were so outraged by the posters, they were frothing all over Twitter about it. If the topic was daft, why were they so irate?

I think shoots is wondering why the significance of differentiating between 'formal' complaints and tweets?

Not the topic of the poster.

I may have misunderstood though.

I think shoots is wondering why the significance of differentiating between 'formal' complaints and tweets?

Let me try to clarify for you.

A) a state run railway has removed an advert
proclaimg love for JKR. In the city where she wrote the books which made her famous.

B) an FOI request reveals there were no complaints made via its official complaints channel

C) The removal of the advert was triggered by Twitter comments

D) The Twitter comments could be generated by outraged non users of Edinburgh trains from Anchorage, Antwerp, Auckland. Or wherever.

E) Why is an advert removed from a state run railway because of Twitter complaints?

F) Do you understand why A) thru E) is an attack on freedom of speech?

D) The Twitter comments could be generated by outraged non users of Edinburgh trains from Anchorage, Antwerp, Auckland. Or wherever.

OK, so does this differ from the formal complaints process? Can people who don't use Edinburgh trains complain?
And re (F), I don't believe (B) to be an attack on freedom of speech, nor (D)

that's pretty normal you tweet Sainsburys or whoever these days and they'll deal with what you've asked. it doesn't need to go via formal channels now

Exactly, complaints are complaints whether it's via old fashioned "official channels" or via Twitter.
As shoots says, it's a perfectly normal and usual way to send complaints on social media via Tweets or FB pages.
Both just as valid.

And re (F), I don't believe (B) to be an attack on freedom of speech, nor (D)

You don't believe that the removal of a pro JKR advert because of non official complaints to be an attack on freedom of speech? Okay. Do you value freedom of speech at all?

C) The removal of the advert was triggered by Twitter comments

D) The Twitter comments could be generated by outraged non users of Edinburgh trains from Anchorage, Antwerp, Auckland. Or wherever.

So? It ceases to be "just a poster in Edinburgh station" when it goes on a worldwide social media platform for everyone internationally to see.
It's spreading a worldwide message which people have either rightly or wrongly deemed transphobic, people seeing this have every right to complain if they find it offensive.
Whether they are from Edinburgh or indeed anywhere else in the UK is neither here nor there, people have as much right to complain if they're not in the country seeing as its spread to them too.
It'd be exactly the same as if it was a poster that was deemed racist by people for example.
Not "you're not in the UK so you don't count"

Bovary, again I think I'm going ot have to stop responding because we talk at cross purposes.
B) was "an FOI request reveals there were no complaints made via its official complaints channel ". I don't consider an FOI request showing no complaints, on its own, to be anything to do with freedom of speech.

You labelled 'removal of a pro-JKR advert' as points (A), (C), and/or (E) and are now telling me that that is the thing I said wasn't an attack on freedom of speech. I said no such thing and can't think of a clearer way to communicate otherwise other than... not saying it, and saying it about a point that you made in a differently labelled entry on the list.

I cannot tell if you have read my previous posts on this thread at all.

It's spreading a worldwide message which people have either rightly or wrongly deemed transphobic

Which people? A tiny cadre of activists? Do they get to dictate to a state run railway what it is allowed to display on its concourse? Who decided that?

Haven't had time to read the more recent comments so I may be repeating what has already been posted.

The Times is now running this story, so seems that mumsnet is not only an endless source of stories for both Pinknews and the DM, but now also the Times!

" ... “In a response to a freedom of information request it said: “As of 19 August, 2020, we have received 158 complaints regarding the posters’ removal. We did not receive any complaints about the poster being up via our customer relations team.”
“The advert at Edinburgh Waverley had been designed and booked for £1,200 by Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, a campaigner against reform of gender recognition laws that would make it easier to self-identify as a given gender.” ... "

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ed2f30f0-f440-11ea-aeed-ec95eac61729?shareToken=cb26ce735cd77f6ee1205254ccb6d7e6&wgu=270525_54264_15998460787973_735a600eb8&wgexpiry=1607622078&

OK, so does this differ from the formal complaints process? Can people who don't use Edinburgh trains complain?

I assume you don't know the answer to this, so I'm still none the wiser as to the significance of differentiating between 'formal' complaints and tweets?

In the context of my previous posts about the value (or lack of) inherent in twitter 'complaints'.

Bovary, again I think I'm going ot have to stop responding because we talk at cross purposes

We are not talking at cross purposes. You are unable to refute my points. Maybe you should ask yourself why that is a recurrent theme.

It's brilliant that weeks and weeks after the event, people are still chatting, talking and dissecting Posie's publicity stunt.

This thread is a prime example of her marketing genius.

Which people? A tiny cadre of activists?

A lot of people worldwide who aren't "activists" use Twitter too.
Why do you assume it was only a tiny handful of activists that reported it?

Do they get to dictate to a state run railway what it is allowed to display on its concourse?

Did you miss where I said it isn't "just on the concourse" if it's Twitter and the rest of my post?

In the response to complaints they refer to Article 5 of the Network Rail Code of Acceptance. Here is a link which summerises the CoA and has a download link to the full details.

www.jcdecaux.co.uk/content-policies#network-rail

In the summary Article 5 is

"Must not be political and call for the support of or attacks a viewpoint, policy or political group"

So being political alone is not sufficient to break the code. Its clearly in support of JKR, but JKR is not a "viewpoint, policy or political group".

If you download the full code however, rather than relying on the summary, Article 5 is actually about obscenity, the relevant article would appear to be Article 9

"[stations] it is of a political nature calling for the support of a particular viewpoint, policy or action or attacking a member or policies of any legislative, central or local government authority;

which makes it even more explicit.

Quote in the Times article:

" ... A spokesman for Network Rail said: “The poster in question is against our code of acceptance for advertising in our stations owing to its political nature.

“We do not allow advertising that is likely to support or promote one viewpoint over another.” ... "

@BovaryX

Bovary, again I think I'm going ot have to stop responding because we talk at cross purposes

We are not talking at cross purposes. You are unable to refute my points. Maybe you should ask yourself why that is a recurrent theme.

I can't tell what your points are, because you label a point about removing a poster due to twitter complaints as points A, C, or E, then tell me when I specifically state 'point B' that I am actually talking about A, C or E!

@Datun

It's brilliant that weeks and weeks after the event, people are still chatting, talking and dissecting Posie's publicity stunt.

This thread is a prime example of her marketing genius.

Quite so. And the desire to control, silence and dictate is on prominent display. Not a good look.

Stumbledin now that is the salient point in the whole issue, and it was questioned in the previous thread when the poster went up/was taken down. I feel the issue has been derailed (ha) by the claim that NR have lied, when their statement on 'political nature' of the poster was far more worthy of discussion.

THAT is the reason they gave for removal. NR have never explicitly attributed it to complaints, tweeted or otherwise, as far as I can see.

@Cailleachian

In the response to complaints they refer to Article 5 of the Network Rail Code of Acceptance. Here is a link which summerises the CoA and has a download link to the full details.

www.jcdecaux.co.uk/content-policies#network-rail

In the summary Article 5 is

"Must not be political and call for the support of or attacks a viewpoint, policy or political group"

So being political alone is not sufficient to break the code. Its clearly in support of JKR, but JKR is not a "viewpoint, policy or political group".

If you download the full code however, rather than relying on the summary, Article 5 is actually about obscenity, the relevant article would appear to be Article 9

"[stations] it is of a political nature calling for the support of a particular viewpoint, policy or action or attacking a member or policies of any legislative, central or local government authority;

which makes it even more explicit.

Sorry, I should also have quoted this post.

C) The removal of the advert was triggered by Twitter comments

It seems it was taken down after a Times journalist asked for their comments about the poster and whether they had had any complaints. They then took it down because they decided it was in breach of their advertising policy.

Network Rail's emails obtained via FOI here:

twitter.com/zeno001/status/1304407051746062341