AR fluff piece in The Times

[Binting]

Just as I commend The Times for finally allowing comments that don’t support self ID, they delete the majority of critical comments under this article:

AR: ‘I find it difficult feeling happy’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e049ffc0-1abc-11ec-8d6d-67649e90fafa?shareToken=5ff96f99ccd28bb5fe93ba6204229755

First time I’ve violated policy when commenting. They’ve also stopped further comments.

I think the article has been paid for, so the Times have bowed to AR and her team and removed comments that don’t support her agenda.

Mine weren’t even that bad.

(apologies if the link doesn’t work)

I commented on this. Definitely nothing breaking guidelines. It was removed almost immediately. Not even a notice to say it violated policy. Just totally disappeared even though a small number of people had already liked. Very odd.

@Franca123, exactly the same with me. My comment on the Bristol Uni article is still there, so definitely pressure on the Times re: the AR article.

There were over 750 comments earlier this morning and now it's down to 388! I would point out that there were some appalling comments - sexist, classist, vile comments about her appearance, her mouth, her accent. Totally unacceptable so I'm pleased that many of these have now disappeared.

Fortunately looking at the highest rated comments, although some have disappeared, there are numerous comments and interesting discussions about her GRA views still remaining.

It does make you wonder. The article itself was a disaster. Angela doing the Angela show. What has any of it got to do with me, my family or my community? Read as a total ego trip for Angela. The pictures were really not giving the right impression either.

How many articles about Michael Gove would start with observations about his socks, and the saucy flash of skin revealed beneath?

Between the PVC flasher's mac and the glitzy earrings, they've made AR look as if she's auditioning for the next series of Strictly, not the leadership of the Opposition.

@MrsOvertonsWindow

There were over 750 comments earlier this morning and now it's down to 388! I would point out that there were some appalling comments - sexist, classist, vile comments about her appearance, her mouth, her accent. Totally unacceptable so I'm pleased that many of these have now disappeared.

Fortunately looking at the highest rated comments, although some have disappeared, there are numerous comments and interesting discussions about her GRA views still remaining.

Actually, I agree, there were some horribly personal comments, mainly from men at a guess.

My comments were critical of her political views and her failure to support women within the Labour Party.

@Lobelian

How many articles about Michael Gove would start with observations about his socks, and the saucy flash of skin revealed beneath?

Between the PVC flasher's mac and the glitzy earrings, they've made AR look as if she's auditioning for the next series of Strictly, not the leadership of the Opposition.

Who is "they"?

Did "they" not let Angela Raynor choose her own clothes and jewellery?

There have been similar articles about Jess Phillips. I wonder how often they bring in a stylist for a long interview with a male MP.

Anyway, putting that to one side, I didn't read that as a fluff piece. I knew very little of that detail before and I admire her for what she's made of her life, from that start. I disagree with her on a great many things and I don't think she's PM material, but that goes for 90%+ of the House of Commons.

I didn't read it as fluff piece either. I didn't know anything of her background. I fail to see what was "fluffy" in allowing her to explain it. Her childhood sounded horrendous.

I disagree with her on many things too; she's not leadership material but it's a bit of a knee jerk reaction and a bit patronising to dismiss this article as "fluff".

I read it and thought she sounded incredibly arrogant. And I believe that arrogance is misplaced.

Fluff piece is maybe unfair. I see it as a paid for article trying to put her across as an asset to the Labour Party, which I don’t think she is. Her background is similar to mine, including a mum with MH problems who made suicide attempts when I was in the house. I was cleaning up blood in the bathroom and bandaging her wrists from the age of 7. That said she didn’t feed us dog food or shaving foam (she just didn’t feed us tbf)

It’s coming from a similar background that makes me more sceptical of her. She’s using a traumatic backstory to get ahead to some extent (and it’s worked so far). It just seems like her team are pushing that aspect for all its worth.

I am somewhat blinded by my belief that she’s a traitor to women.

Apologies Binting if I came over as critical of your post - not my intention. I share your concerns about the Times moderation system being at variance to their open and challenging reporting about this issue.

At times the boorish sexist male is on full display below the line on there - and this article brought them all out

And yes - I share your disappointment about her unthinking capitulation to this ideology. But if it means she (and the party) have to say out loud the end game - that women must now be supervised by men 24/7, no matter how private or personal the situation, then that's a good thing in terms of sunlight. (I think).

I think the article has been paid for, so the Times have bowed to AR and her team and removed comments that don’t support her agenda.

That's a serious and potentially libellous accusation.

I'm not a fan of AR - and this was indeed very soft on her - but it's illegal for newspapers to take money for articles unless they then clearly label them as advertorial.

This is basically a transcript of the podcast she did with James O'Brien released yesterday podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuaG9zdGluZy50aGlzaXNkYXguY29tLzk1MTU4Y2ZiLWY3NGYtNGY5Yy04ZjQ3LTAwYmQ5NzZhYjAxZA/episode/NTg5YzI4YmMtNmNkNy00YzEzLWI2MDMtMjVmNzYwNmQ0YjY3?ep=14

Having worked on a fair few national newspapers, I would bet my house that the article was not paid for. It's a weekly slot that tries to show the person behind the politician (they nearly always interview politicians or campaigners) and is usually quite a soft piece. Just because you don't like or don't agree with the way someone has been portrayed, it doesn't mean that journalists are working in cahoots with anyone.

Re: the comments - the moderators on the Times do seem to have become a lot twitchier recently.

She looks bloody amazing in the pics! Just sayin... She's actually quite a Shero given her upbringing and path through life.

But I can't be anything more than "meh" about her seeing as she hasn't supported Rosie Duffield and is "committed to Self I'd under the GRA"... Oh well. No votes for you then if you become leader. A monumental shame.

I find the fact that's she's stooping to this level of ego trip in a Murdoch paper sums it up. Zero integrity.

I thought this might be quite an exciting piece about augmented reality.

I'm disappointed. Nonetheless interesting to learn that AR sees herself as a strong candidate to run against Starmer soon.

Disastrous for women, of course. The first female leader of the Labour Party and someone determined to remove the sex class of women but there we have the contemporary Labour Party.

Has her awful childhood and 'tough cookie ' self image informed her attitude to the 🚆s ? Like a sort of mother hen complex.

EmbarrassingAdmissions

The first female leader of the Labour Party and someone determined to remove the sex class of women

Yes, it's like some sort of cruel satire. Although I don't believe she will ever be leader, but still.

As a contrast I'm listening to a long interview of Rachel Reeves MP by Nick Robinson and she is coming across very well. Far too centrist to be acceptable to a large part of the Labour Party but if they ever decided they were in the game of seeking to win elections again...

The first female leader of the Labour Party...

That would be Margaret Beckett. Hattie Harman was also acting leader for a brief period.

But it is all too familiar the way Rayner is sneered at for her accent whilst the likes of Pfeffle and Mogg spout fifty different flavours of rubbish in their Eton tones.

Call her out for what she says, not how she says it.

That would be Margaret Beckett. Hattie Harman was also acting leader for a brief period.

You're right. Should I have phrased that as first female elected as leader or first female non-caretaker leader? Is there a phrase that captures all the necessary nuance?

Beckett and Harman were both elected deputy leaders.