Owen Jones has relentlessly persecuted women online, including his own colleagues. An external investigator brought in by The Guardian has found him guilty of bullying a female columnist.

[ChristinaXYZ]

"Owen Jones has relentlessly persecuted women online, including his own colleagues. An external investigator brought in by The Guardian has found him guilty of bullying a female columnist."

twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1514169122027884544

[quote AlecTrevelyan006]OJ has spoken

mobile.twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1514256846642630656?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet[/quote]
That statement from the Guardian looks like something he’s knocked up himself in the notes on his phone and screenshot it.

Has there been a statement from the Guardian? I can’t find it yet.

If that sparse Guardian statement is all LOJ has to hide behind he's in trouble.

It's hardly a ringing endorsement of his professional integrity and personal decency is it? More of a 'we're pissed off that this was leaked and anyway 'found guilty of bullying' wasn't the actual exact phrase used so it's not even strictly true ok?'

I mean that Guardian statement fits pretty well with "Yet it has tried to keep the report quiet and appears not to have sanctioned Jones at all." It's weasel words. Not found guilty of bullying but probably found guilty of a synonym for bullying.

The bullying thing is from Twitter. It's not in the Private Eye article (is it?).

Has there been a statement from the Guardian? I can’t find it yet.

Neither can I. Not on Twitter or the newspaper. Internal email although it reads as more public facing.

@WarriorN

And yet....Ben Butterworth has said that he was bullied by OJ many times.

(I know, I had to double check.)

I've seen them mid argument on twitter.

They have 'beef' - competition for TV slots - Jones disapproves of Bitterworth appearing on GBNews.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Has there been a statement from the Guardian? I can’t find it yet.

Neither can I. Not on Twitter or the newspaper. Internal email although it reads as more public facing.

I expect they're hoping it all blows over quickly.

So OJ will now be suing Private Eye, will he?

You know, I don't claim to understand all the ins and outs of things on here but I cannot cope with OJ and his supporters twisting of events. Having been abused mentally by my ex for years, it gives me the same feeling of going mad, of not being heard... It's horrendous. Even the phrase anti trans activists. I see feminists and TRAs. I see OJ doing cancel culture with his little pile ons not the other way around according to Ash Sakhar (no idea why she is a blue ticked?)

I'm not saying there aren't feminists who can be unpleasant, people are people, but the twisting and gaslighting...it's painful. Genuinely has reduced me to tears from being triggered. (And I hate that phrase).

We just want to know the truth.
Why are people so afraid of him?

I agree, ConfusedNoMore, I've found it really upsetting lots of times.

twitter.com/FeministRoar/status/1514274946335260679?

There's a lot of nuance involved here. I will hold up my hand as someone who read "bullied" as a word used by the complainant. In the context of the PE item, I then took that claim to be upheld. It's an odd form of wording otherwise but I'm open to it being my misunderstanding.

Andrew Doyle comments:

Today’s culture wars are largely being waged through the manipulation and misapplication of language. Many activists are explicit about their refusal to debate their ideas — for the simple reason they would collapse under scrutiny — and one of the ways this can be achieved is to destabilise shared definitions of words.

unherd.com/2022/04/when-libel-laws-are-needed/?1649653030161

@SpinningMeSoftly

So OJ will now be suing Private Eye, will he?

We can but hope!

@EsmaCannonball

Hang on, wouldn't falling out with Benjamin Butterworth make him a racist too?

That statement is amateur.

The eye article talks about harassment and intimidation, others have interpreted this as bullying behaviour. That's a reasonable view given people's experience of OJs twitter behaviour.

Thanks for the screenshot, @PronounssheRa! What a prat Kimono Man is. He's a QC! I never cease to marvel at this.

Thanks for the clarifications.

I personally prefer the legal precision of the words ‘harassment’ and ‘intimidation’ to the more general word ‘bullying’ anyway. Quite why OJ might think this wording a vindication of any sort for him is a mystery. Frankly I think it appears worse.

So LOJ isn't found to be a bully, but is found to be 'driving harassment' and 'intimidating women'.

Well done Owen, you must be proud of yourself.

How odd that the Guardian statement comes from a 'spokesman'. Most organisations, especially ones that see themselves as progressive, have moved to using 'spokesperson' now.

@SpinningMeSoftly

So OJ will now be suing Private Eye, will he?

I've just re-read the Private Eye article and it doesn't say anywhere that he bullied anyone. It quotes a complaint of bullying (in quotation marks, so the complainant's word) and that complaint was upheld — but the findings against him didn't actually use the word bullying.

I rather think that Ian Hislop —sex god— is more than a match for little Owen

So LOJ isn't found to be a bully, but is found to be 'driving harassment' and 'intimidating women'.

Well done Owen, you must be proud of yourself.

What an utterly ridiculous man he is. Does he think that will satisfy anyone?

I'd be keen for them to revisit the approach they took in Arkell vs Pressdram Ltd. lettersofnote.com/2013/08/07/arkell-v-pressdram/

Dear Sirs,

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

Yours,
Private Eye

Private Eye have been around the block a few times in terms of going to court. I don't think they'd be worried. I think OJ might well be, and that's why he's subdued. He'll know people will ask why he doesn't sue them.

I've stopped watching Jeremy Vine on C5 due to giving LOJ airtime. Just seeing him on the telly makes me angry.