Woman's Hour: What happened this morning?

[NonCisWoman]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9117995/Actress-refuses-appear-Womans-Hour-accusing-host-Emma-Barnett-degrading-comments.html

An actress refused to appear on Woman's Hour this morning after accusing host Emma Barnett of making 'degrading and vile' comments about her.

Kelechi Okafor was set to talk on the BBC Radio 4 show to discuss the #MeToo movement with new presenter Emma Barnett.

But as the programme was live on air, the Nigerian-British actress revealed she had come off the show, writing: 'Because what I've just had to witness is absolutely degrading and vile.'

Posting a video to Instagram, she said: 'I won't be going on Woman's Hour now. The host didn't realise her mic was on as she was talking s* about me to the producers.'

But if Barnett didn't have time to ask LIonel about her controversial comments, then why how she have time to talk about KO's?

KO's previous comments didn't have anything to do with "Me too", from what I can see?

@Llama - are you getting that she referred to women as whores from that one line in the report you linked or from elsewhere? I would like to read more about this.

I'm sick and tired of this purity stuff. Presenters acting like they're on a holy mission for the Inquisition. If the topic was the Me Too movement, that's what should have been covered.
EB's behaviour seems unprofessional to me. She should be careful, people in glass houses and all that.

[quote Chicchicchicchiclana]@Llama - are you getting that she referred to women as whores from that one line in the report you linked or from elsewhere? I would like to read more about this.[/quote]
This is a link to the report of the trial which references it

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/school-aide-laundered-brothel-cash-946427

But there are references to it in reports from the times, Mail, express so it seems it is true

We have no idea what exactly was said or happened. Seems rash to be condemning either party at this stage. Other than to say the whole thing was unprofessional.

So let me get this right - we have one guest who has made anti-semitic remarks, another white guest who defames BLM and Me Too and a Woman's Hour presenter who casually refers to her father's 'whores' and is ill-prepared to manage a live show?

None of them cover themselves in glory but the real question is - what the hell is going on at the BBC, self-appointed guardian of diversity and inclusion?

We'll never know how the conversation would have played out if EB had brought up antisemitism with KO. That's partly what makes KO's flounce so disappointing. As it turned out, EB literally didn't have time to challenge Shriver's BLM comments and allow room for follow up with less than 5 minutes to go.

The antisemitic comments

www.thejc.com/comment/opinion/this-is-what-happens-when-you-challenge-antisemitism-1.450843

I'm with EB on this one.

From the article I linked

Sounds like the guest threw her toys out of the pram over very little. Or she wasn't prepared to be challenged on her own what could be fairly embarrassing comments.

@NonCisWoman

Shows like this usually give the panellists the questions beforehand so that they can prepare nuanced, articulate, answers. Panelists are often given the opportunity to reject questions too.

It seems that the anti-Semitism question was unexpectedly given to KO, which is poor form. It also didn't have anything to do with the topic of the show (The Me Too movement).

I don't see what Weinstein being Jewish has to do with anything really?

No broadcast journalist worthy of the name ever gives the interviewee questions beforehand. Broad areas of discussion - sure. Questions, no. That said, this sounds like a massive cock-up

Agree Longtailjosie they wouldn't give out questions beforehand

Could someone be trying to sabotage EB?

[quote Chicchicchicchiclana]@Llama - are you getting that she referred to women as whores from that one line in the report you linked or from elsewhere? I would like to read more about this.[/quote]
This poster, having previously commented that she didn't see the relevance of a father's crimes, is now asking for - and subsequently receiving - information about those crimes, thus derailing the thread and furthering any defamatory intent or effect of the original commenter who introduced the crimes as a way to smear the presenter.

Posts from a couple of other commenters have also quoted the original derogatory comments, while questioning their nature and effect.

I'm sick and tired of this purity stuff. Presenters acting like they're on a holy mission for the Inquisition

It’s tiresome isn’t it? But this is the way things are going and it’s just going to get worse and worse until we all reach peak purity.

Out of interest what did Shriver say about BLM that was so awful?

From EVAW's tweet it sounds like they weren't just discussing how they were going to question her, sounds like it was a bit less polite than that. So can understand why she might not have wanted to continue with the call.

Anti-semetic comments should absolutely be challenged (as should racist comments), but there still needs to be professionalism. There's also an argument that it's not right to invite someone on to discuss one subject, while actually intending to confront them about another one.

Broadly speaking Signalbox, Lionel Shriver stated that she views both of #metoo and BLM as causes that started from the best of intentions but have gone far beyond that and are in some senses counter-productive.

But she also excused the behaviour of Michael Fallon as being solely about touching someone's knee when the reality goes beyond that. In general, I welcome Shriver's contributions, which sometimes I don't like, but she often operates as a headline-driven propagandist.

I can't see how asking about the antisemitism is an ambush in the context of a discussion about someone who is Jewish. If Okafor didn't work out that the topic would come up, she hadn't prepared adequately.

What have I done wrong here? I knew not one single thing about Emma Barnett, not even her name, before opening this thread. I'm trying to find out more about her. I've googled but little is coming up. I don't think I'm derailing. I've said what I wanted to say about the interviewee's refusal to appear right at the start of the thread.

"Degrading and vile" is a disproportionate reaction to potentially not being asked the questions you wanted to be asked on a radio programme. Ridiculous.

@MaryLeeOnHigh

I can't see how asking about the antisemitism is an ambush in the context of a discussion about someone who is Jewish. If Okafor didn't work out that the topic would come up, she hadn't prepared adequately.

Because it was about the #MeToo movement.

@NonCisWoman

Also, why was KO being asked about Reggie Yates' comments? Surely the best person to ask about Reggie Yates' comments is Reggie Yates himself?

Women aren't responsible for the mistakes of men. Ever.

She was asked because she defended Yates' remarks at the time.