Graham Norton has terminated his Twitter account after attacking JK Rowling

[SwanageBay]

Well that's one less beardy man on there defending rape and death threats.

🤣🤣🤣

Got tickets in 2015 to sit in the audience of Graham Norton Show with Elton John - WHAT YOU DON’T SEE … the music act is filmed first and when the act finishes their set piece, they cross the floor to sit with the other guests - then they all leave for a short break, then he introduces the main guests back again and then it’s mixed as though the music set was after the discussion part - this was the one where Graham Norton was wheeled in, strapped to a sack trolley - was a guest back stage afterwards for drinks - a fabulous experience - Graham is a born entertainer and very funny and quick witted - a lot of this criticism of him is very one sided and unfair. Not surprised really - it feels like the socialist comedians are waiting in the wings - running down anything that smacks of middle England and replace it with the PC liberal Humour that we’re made to feel is funny when we know full well it’s the Labour Luvvies queuing up to line their pockets after 12 years in obscurity!

Graham is a born entertainer and very funny and quick witted - a lot of this criticism of him is very one sided and unfair.

He's not being criticised for being boring on the telly.

did you know that PR agencies employ people to try to talk up their clients on social media?

I merely note this because there is a 'welcome to mumsnet' account posting on this thread, not really engaging with the topic and making some rather bizarre posts about RAF bases. It's all bit peculiar.

Hey honey, you need to chill - order yourself a carry out tonight, (you strange people call it a takeaway) pizza with mozzarella cheese and pineapple and a large coke to go - why is everyone getting hung up about neighbors? Who cares how it’s spelt? You Brits are so funny … your quaint little island - just love Stratford upon Avon!

He's not being criticised for being boring on the telly.

Exactly, just because he's funny doesn't mean he's right. I found him funny too, although I hadn't seen the fat suit stuff, and I'm disappointed in that. I think I'll see him differently now, more cruel perhaps and therefore no longer entertaining.

I’ve got quite a lot to unpick around humour, because I think it comes from an instinctive place in the psyche and quite often the same people who make me double over in hysterics also sometimes makes me go 😳 “ooo, no… that is waaaay too far over the line- yikes”. It’s a fine line to tread. If a comedian makes rape jokes or relentlessly mocks women though, I can’t stomach it.

I thought GN usually is quite warm and takes the piss out of everyone.

I find it really odd though, for a comedian to support cancel culture. To write material that connects with people, you can’t censor yourself before you even start- especially if your whole thing is about being cheeky and subversive. Does anyone find pompous ‘right on’ comedy funny?

It must be that he just doesn’t give a shit about women and maybe has that deep dark streak of actual misogyny- resenting that a woman can have all the success of JK Rowling - a level that few man can reach. He has managed to have an extremely successful career, which suggests a bit of ruthless ambition beneath the twinkly smile.

@EndlessTea i think he’s an utter misogynist who thinks because he loves his mum he can’t possibly be.

his comment about jk “wanging on” about her book said it all about his contempt for her

they cannot come to terms with a phenomenally successful woman who also doesn’t care about playing the celebrity game

I find it really odd though, for a comedian to support cancel culture. To write material that connects with people, you can’t censor yourself before you even start- especially if your whole thing is about being cheeky and subversive.

He never had any intention of censoring himself. He just expects women to do it. And only notices when they don't.

Yes to both ^^

his comment about jk “wanging on” about her book said it all about his contempt for her

I have found the posters ignoring the pure derision that ‘wanging on’ indicated. It wasn’t said in any way that could have been misconstrued as derison. A question for those who watch the shows, does Graham Norton treat men the same way? Does he dress up in costumes to shame men the same way? Has he spoken about male guests who have been on the show with the same tone?

I am just interested to know if it really is something he does to everyone or just women.

I saw Graham Norton live in the 90’s at a grubby little pub and came away disliking him. He was pretty nasty to a young woman in the audience and I vaguely recall sexism and classism of the same type as his Jade Goody schtick.

in later years I found his chat show persona tolerable and assumed he’d grown up and become more understanding. I think I was wrong though

I think it’s very easy to assume that men see us as real, equal people. It’s important to be aware of the possibility that they don’t

That’s interesting @BernardBlacksMolluscs. Perhaps it suggests that his ‘warmth’ is actually calculated- to enable his mainstream success.

I think it's very likely that he has done a very deliberate about turn in his comedy and the tone of his output since his new career as an author took off. I haven't read any of his books (and don't intend to give him either the money or the headspace) but a quick glance at Amazon reveals plaudits from other authors and media reviewers include 'brimful of tenderness and compassion', 'charming and tender', 'observant', 'perceptive', 'full of heart and humanity' etc etc.

I think it would be very difficult to build that brand while appearing on Friday night tv doing his old schtick of snidey sniggering like a year 9 playground bully, and mocking and revelling in the humiliation of (mostly) young women. Looking back at that clip (shared upthread) of him laying into Britney Spears when she was having her very public breakdown, making much comic mileage over how unattractive her shaved head was, then showing a full-screen paparazzi upskirt shot of her getting out of a car and pointing out that it matched her genitals seems almost shocking now and shows his subtle but total shift.

He would be the unpleasant character in any novel - nasty and spiteful, seizing the slip-ups and flaws of others and cruelly amplifying them for laughs. Hard to present himself as capable of tenderness, compassion, heart or humanity while maintaining a lucrative career doing that every single week on prime time TV. I am certain not wanting to have evidence of his past bullying dragged into the sunlight on twitter is the reason for his hasty exit, under cover of a 'be kind' disguise.

But we've seen it. We know. He can rebrand the packaging but the ingredients are still the same.

Yes, exactly, he's the new Terry Wogan.

Looking back at that clip (shared upthread) of him laying into Britney Spears when she was having her very public breakdown, making much comic mileage over how unattractive her shaved head was, then showing a full-screen paparazzi upskirt shot of her getting out of a car and pointing out that it matched her genitals

The Jade Goody Fat suit

JKR 'wanging on' about her book and being 'problematic'

Graham Norton deleted his Twitter account because he doesn't want to be held accountable for these and many more instances, he knew they would be found and posted on his Twitter and attention drawn to them, questions asked about his misogynist attitude - accountability for thee but not for me is clearly his motto. He has not been hounded off Twitter he made a conscious decision to delete his account, he doesn't want scrutiny of his back catalogue because he wouldn't dream of apologising for any of it, he is proud of it.

Late to the party (I like to RTFT but am far too slow a reader!) but just my twopenneth worth...

If you take GN's interview comments in isolation then they seem fairly innocuous. I don't particularly agree with his take but nothing jumps out at me as awful.
However I do think the context in which the comments were made need to be taken into account:
That he was responding to specific questions about JKR
That he had previously made the 'problematic' comments.
These clearly reveal the disingenuous nature of what he said. I don't think there's much of a leap to make the inferences that JKR and others (who aren't JKR robots and able to think for themselves) have made.

Regarding JKR's tweets, she's not accused anybody of anything from what I've seen. She's asked BB a valid question (whether 'accountability' also includes receiving rape and death threats) which he has answered.

There is no evidence that GN has been hounded off twitter, at the behest of JKR or otherwise. There is literally nothing to see.

I could actually forgive Norton for the horrible stuff about Goody, Spears and so on. It's nasty, but obviously enough people found it acceptable at the time and so he could be forgiven for not realising the standards of the day were so off. It was always open season on Goody, even before the Celebrity Big Brother disaster.

But what I can't forgive is that, after lecturing about "accountability", he's taking none and showing no interest in learning from the past. There's no humility, no ownership, no attempt to learn and improve. No accountability.

Yes, this. The 'accountability' comments do clearly infer a tacit approval of all aspects of cancel culture, which includes rape and death threats.

I will give GN the benefit of the doubt insofar as the fact that rape and death threats happen regularly is probably not even on his radar, but this to me just makes his comments even more hypocritical and ill informed.

I think it's very likely that he has done a very deliberate about turn in his comedy and the tone of his output since his new career as an author took off. I haven't read any of his books (and don't intend to give him either the money or the headspace) but a quick glance at Amazon reveals plaudits from other authors and media reviewers include 'brimful of tenderness and compassion', 'charming and tender', 'observant', 'perceptive', 'full of heart and humanity' etc etc.

I read his first novel for my former book club. It was chosen off the back of these rave reviews. It was an unadulterated pile of shite - rubbish plot full of holes and badly written. I think he has benefited from the nepotism of the media and publishing which seems to intertwine so much. I imagine he's been quite powerful as a "hot" commodity for the BBC; and I wonder whether those in the industry worry that pissing him off might result in some kind of blackballing, e.g. one's child not getting that (thoroughly deserved, I'm sure) internship. I really could not understand what these raving reviewers were getting from this book.

I say this as someone who has never had time for JKR's novels either (just not my cup of tea), so this comment is not about hating his work on principle. I have never liked him as a light entertainer either, the few times I tried watching his show, the undertone of pure nastiness dressed as humour always made me think he is far closer to his Father Noel character IRL than was comfortable for me(and, much like poor Tony stuck in the caravan, I just wanted him to shut up).

Of course he knows.

Just a point to note about Twitter - your account remains (together with all your followers) if you say you want to delete it but return within the month.

I learned this from Jack Monroe who did a performative flounce recently.

I'm sure GN will be back once the fuss has died down

Yes, you can deactivate for up to a month, and many people do.

Given the persona he presents and his suggestions about celebs not getting involved I wonder did you he just shrug and go, not worth the effort, not interested. Because fundamentally I don't think he is interested. He produces light superficial fluff for a living (and he does it well). Arguing about the rights and wrongs of accountability, feminist perspectives and the implications of trans ideology for broader society would take a lot more brain power and rigour than he is used to expending.

I read one of his books (not the novels). It possibly forms the backbone of my view of him. A series of superficial essays about various icons interspersed with "hilarious" tales of drinking too much and meeting famous people. Vacuous in the extreme.