'The Guardian has found itself defending a sex-offender's right to expose themselves to children'

[secular111]

This is a continuation of the thread at;

Shameful incoherent, poorly-referenced, completely biased piece of journalism from the Guardian

The quote in the title is from Dave Hewitt's essay published today;

The Guardian's Ideological dead-end

As you can likely guess, he eviscerates The Guardian, and leaves its rotting carcase out-in-the-sun for the vultures to pick over.

Quite simply, Guardian readers have once again been fed a pack of Alex Jones-style falsehoods, this time over the Wi-Spa scandal. As usual, LOJ contributed to the attempts to hoodwink the readership, and for the most part it seemed to have worked. Until Andy Ngo exposed the entire rotting falsehood in what has proven to be the journalistic scoop-of-the-year to date.

Hewitt details how The Guardian's world-view has seen it simply unable to present itself as a reliable news source, with it now peddling deliberate falsehoods and fake-news, in much the same way the right-wing press in the US is accused of. The Guardian though has gone further in its commitment to falsehood; all the complainants in the Wi-Spa scandal were Black women, so The Guardian had determined to deprive those women of their legitimate voices - a fundamentally racist act.

I'm not sure what the owners of The Guardian - The Scott Trust, have as a business model. Hoping that the readership and subscribers are easily or willingly fooled by whatever lies the hacks write doesn't seem to be a long-term strategy. That though is precisely where The Guardian is today, having abandoned facts are sacred as a creed, replaced with lies are paramount.

Brilliant. Laurie Penny is still trying to pretend this never happened and that any form of discrimination is wrong.

I wonder if they'll one day apologise for their classic 1986 advert as an inappropriate attachment to the notion that there is such a thing as a full picture or that it might be desirable.

MN frown heavily on transphobia so no doubt you’ll be reporting it Sloane

@sloanerangerpandora

Yawn....Another transphobic thread.

Where? You had better report it!

Yawn....Another transphobic thread.

You're the only person that's mentioned trans here...

In the same issue LOJ is mewling about how it’s good to drive a gay man away from Pride for supporting an LGB organisation.

As Titania McGrath says: “When we call for you to be sacked, trash your reputation, dogpile you online, insult you, libel you and wish for your death, that’s just our way of gently helping you to come over to the right side of history.”

@sloanerangerpandora

Yawn....Another transphobic thread.

Do you believe the registered sex offender getting a cock out in a women's and children section was doing it because of entirely innocent reasons? Or not?

Occum's razor may be for you.

What is sloanerangerpandora suggesting about trans people here exactly?

This board has quite strict rules against negative generalisations.

It sounds like they're suggesting either that trans people are generally in favour of men exposing themselves to women and children, or that they're in favour of newspapers trying to excuse that.

But hopefully I'm misunderstanding. Clarification welcome.

Oh, but this cockshower isn't representative of all cockhavers, so how dare you shame all cockhavers on the basis of this person's behaviour?
(Or something)
Most cockhavers will be quite innocent and therefore entitled to have and show their cocks in women's spaces. (Or something.)

Do cockhavers prefer to be referred to as cockhavers or prostratehavers? I always forget.

@Franca123

Do cockhavers prefer to be referred to as cockhavers or prostratehavers? I always forget.

Wankers

Sloane ranger?
How old do you have to be for that to spring to mind as a user name?

It would be funny if it weren't so enraging. I never, ever thought that I'd abandon the Graun. Read it for 40 years. Now I wouldn't wrap my fish and chips in it.

That Dave Hewitt article is so good - completely nails the issue. It would be depressing but the Guardian nailed its colours to the mast many years ago so progressing to defending a sex offender's rights to indecently expose himself to a child is the logical progression. Idiots.

That guardian piece is appalling. Really really shit. I know what they're like now but I was still wtf.

They can't have news pieces using the word women and meaning sex about things going on around the world. Abortion taleban etc.

And then have this.

It's mind blowingly hypocritical.

@Fitt

Sloane ranger? How old do you have to be for that to spring to mind as a user name?

Are you suggesting women in their 50s shouldn't be posting? What has anyone's age got to do with the subject matter here?

Owen Jones’ article today is pathetic. Cancelling my subscription (should have done it years ago).

Oh dear, what line is OJ taking?

That the man who wore an LGB Alliance T shirt to Manchester pride is some sort of ‘wrong’…

So there are nude sessions for women, nude sessions for men and mixed nude sessions? Not sure that I understand the problem?

The problem is the women who choose the women's session, and their children, chose a women's session- a penis free space.
The mixed sessions or male sessions are ideal for people with a penis.
The mixed sessions are also clothed.

Is this the article?

It's basically about the oppression of white males.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/03/anti-lgbtq-hate-crime-bigotry-britain

(OJ)

How on earth does the Guardian report on the Taliban and women rights? I'm pretty sure that as a woman in Afghanistan I couldn't identify as a man and have all the rights men get. Surely when they're discussing this they have to use one of the terms like, uterus-havers in order to be accurate. Or do they know it's a wink wink thing with the reader - you know what we mean when we say female in this piece. Bonkers.