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.

I also have no idea how she thinks Billy Bragg supports rape and death threats just because he doesn't agree with her on trans issues. To start throwing these accusations around is pretty crap of her. Billy Bragg has been an enormous supporter of womens rights for a long time.

But it JK Rowlings words. She doesn't care when she see's the numbers on her royalty cheques.

Did you actually listen to what he said, watch the interview?

Interesting.

Did HE listen or read what JK Rowling said, and apply it to anything that's going on? I assume not, as clearly - as everyone is pointing out - he wants people to listen only to the right people, who we all know are not women.

Norton thinks cancel culture can't exist because rich and famous people who talk about it are still on the telly.

But this is not the experience of Lisa Keogh , James Esses , Kathleen Stock , Maya Forstater , the college Porter in Cambridge , the nurse in New Zealand etc etc.

These people are not multimillionaire celebrities like himself of course. So perhaps he is unaware of their existence. Nobody has bullied or threatened him or Emma Watson. It's just their opinions are not as popular as they imagined. He lacks the spine to be the TRA version of Graham Linehan.

@ChiefWiggumsBoy But he wasn't there being interviewed about JK Rowling. Or about trans issues. So why should he have read up on JK Rowlings views before hand? What should he have said when questioned? He has also faced criticism for dodging the issue.

So basically, if anyone, at any point, gets questioned on their views of trans people, they should just say "please speak to JK Rowling about it, she is the only one who's opinion matters"?

@Feyrethefae @ScaryFaces What seems to have happened by stealth (because of social media perhaps) IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS … entertainers and authors produced content and got broadcasters and paper media to promote them - end of … NOW those same content producers want consumers to accept their personal views on top of the ‘stuff’ they’re trying to sell us - trouble is that it’s difficult to know if everything they say is ‘Showbiz Hype’ made up by a publicist to connect with easily led people to sell more ‘stuff or genuine!’ Graham Norton is right - I don’t care what JKR says above her publishing exploits … if she’s got other views she should follow Glenda Jackson’s lead and run for Parliament .. otherwise Shut-the-Fcuk-Up!!! My young daughter manipulated me to buy into Harry Potter big time - fell for all the hype over those years - but if I’d known the views of the publisher then (rather than later) I would have saved a lot of money - I don’t care what JKR thinks

TRAs interpret the following to mean that trans people shouldn't exist and should die.

"Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult that will have you. Live your best life in peace and security."

So I think it's reasonable that if BB doesn't condemn rape and death threats that he condones them, presumably because it's ok if the woman they are levelled at is guilty of wrong think.

And also absolute ROFL that you've read a clearly tongue-in-cheek response from JK Rowling and have run with it like she's Scrooge McDuck or something!

Yes, from what I've seen on twitter you're right.

unless just saying something as innocuous as listen to trans people,

Almost the entire western world has altered its legal system because it listens to trans people.

What they don't do is listen to women.

Norton, enjoy him though I do, is being very disingenious here.

He would definately call out his guests for that.

So why should he have read up on JK Rowlings views before hand? What should he have said when questioned?

If he doesn't know anything about her views (fair enough as you say), why volunteer that they are 'problematic'? He can't pled ignorance on one level but not that one.

I'm on your side OP but, really, Norton didn't attack her. There is no shame is saying "talk to trans people ". We should. Definitely. I'm happy to understand them better. I'm not against them. He didn't say they were women, did he? They're not, by the way.

Yes. but the questions he answered were linked to J K Rowling. Twice she was mentioned specifically.

Did he say, ' I am not discussing J K Rowling '? No, he made his answers. And he has since had opportunity to clarify. Has he clarified that questions specifically mentioning J K Rowling were not answered as if he was answering a question specifically about J K Rowling.

Do you think a person who makes his living asking questions to people, would be keen to make sure his answers were not able to be taken to apply to her if he did not intend them to?

Mea culpa. I should have been more clear.

My response was more to the part I bolded than the specifics of what GN has said or not said. In that if you are even slightly critical of trans anything then you are told to 'educate yourself' but TRAs are not in the slightest bit interested in that themselves and swallow every single platitude hook line and sinker.

Here's the interview. She specifically asked him about the threats and abuse that Rowling gets and he refuses to condemn them. Just waffles on and basically ignores the very blatant conflict of interest between trans and women's rights.

Always interesting to see the demand that women give the very generous interpretation of words and events, accept innocence, that people can't be expected to choose words perfectly, probably had no ill intent - in essence to be kind

where the political TQ+ lobby demanding this take one look at someone potentially dodgy in the crowd at a public event and immediately start screaming abuse about how the speaker and everyone associated with them is permanently contaminated and damned.

I very much doubt Norton has or ever will receive threats of rape or being 'kerb stomped' - the sheer evil of a mind that can imagine up something like kerb stomping is staggering, we're not talking about normal, well people. Rowling has.

If you say that if you manage to make what has happened to you heard at all by anyone, you have not been sinned against or harmed - how many bloody women haven't got the public name, platform, determination, courage, position, time, to be heard as the few have who have fought and fought not to disappear in silence? No one's measuring. Any more than anyone cares or measures how many women silently leave women's spaces as males invade them. Norton has no fucks to give about that apparently. If women had been properly 'cancelled' to his satisfaction neither he nor anyone else would know about it, would they? It would have successfully happened out of sight, that harm gone unchallenged.

And 'talk to trans people' - about trans issues. Women's issues are not trans issues, there is a conflict there. Women are bitterly aware and experienced in misogynist men with no skin in the game dismissing their appalling problems with male take over of their spaces, language, words, with a head pat telling them that males who identify as TQ+ are the experts.

We know Graham. We have a lot of males of all genders who believe males will tell women who they are, what they are, what they feel, what they can have, what they must do, what they must not say, what their faiths and cultures may be, and in essence how their little lives must revolve around and serve penis people while pretending penis people are vagina people because penis people want it.

When Norton says 'accountability', in Norton's terms, he means 'justified punishment'. For women speaking out for women's rights and equality. Being cute and giggly does not make that go away. Flouncing and looking like a victim does not make that go away. This is the beginning of celebs realising, with the Mermaids binfire blazing away, that being stupidly naive over all this, for years, is going to bite them in the bum.

Her tweet wasn't about her views or whether they should agree with her, but about how they seem to be saying that cancel culture as meted out to GC women (in JK's case rape and death threats) is just accountability (which is acceptable), so either they condone rape and death threats (or in the case of other women losing jobs, being hounded by the police etc) because it is accountability or they don't actually know what these women are talking about when they talk about cancel culture but are nonetheless handwaving it away.

Which is a typical selfish (it does not affect me so I will be generous) type of answer from a man who does not give a hoot about women.

Because missing in the Experts and Trans People are WOMEN whos rights are being upended.

The point occurred to me when reading this post but it's relevant to the whole thread. I think he was purposefully trying to move the conversation away from trans people and JKR and make the point in a general sense. I've heard him say similar on and off for years - his job is to welcome celebrities in his show and give them a light-hearted platform to discuss their latest project. It's not his place to opine on the issue of the day, whatever it may be. Talk to the experts, not celebrities.

Yep I agree with you. Along with mocking Amy Winehouse for a laugh on his show and describing her as a 'useful punchline' when she was battling with the demons that killed her.

I think it's the reminder of the fact that he is simply Not a Very Nice Man that has seen him scuttle off.

Talk to the experts, not celebrities.

Rowling is an expert in being an abused female in need of female services, and using them. And in being female. And in experiencing the most appalling behaviour of the political TQ+ lobby.

Yes, she's bloody inconvenient because of it, but what 'expert' would speak better for her? The male head of the rape services who says females like her can only have help from their service if they agree to conversion therapy to TQ+ male centric compliance first?

He's a rude obnoxious little man when the cameras aren't rolling.

I had the misfortune to be at the taping of one of his shows.

The audience were all female and he was an arrogant little shit.

Because Bragg, Norton and all the rest of them are too chicken shit to say 'actually, it was disgusting the amount of abuse that JKR received off the back of a few tweets' because they are terrified of being seen on the 'wrong side of history', angering the gods of gender ideology and having the TRAs turn on them.

So instead they bollock on about 'accountability', basically implying that any woman who dares to say men cannot become women should be 'accountable' for their 'free speech' - accountability in this case being subjected to threats of death and physical and sexual violence in the extreme, losing their employment, having the police round etc.

Meanwhile JKR herself has never left twitter, and has stood firm, despite the tonne of shit that has been hurled at her. Why? Because unlike these cowardly men whose main priority is to keep themselves looking good, she actually gives a shit about what she is talking about and actually cares about women and girls.

Am so sick of these craven, sycophantic idiots.

I agree with this.

"A famous person is complaining they feel unable to speak their mind/'cancelled' because people have an opinion on their opinion and that's ridiculous because they are still being given a huge platform and professional opportunities to talk about said opinion".

No. It doesn't work like that, unless your chosen profession actually is talking about GC matters on all and any media platforms available. If you work in any sphere that, of and in itself, is wholly unconnected with the sex and gender issue, e.g. acting, then to be prevented from acting and making a living from acting because you have GC views is effective cancellation. It does not matter whether GB News or whatever is willing to have you on to talk about it. You can talk about it ad nauseam. It doesn't mean you are able to make a living in the way you have been doing in your chosen profession, because the industry is running scared from people without and within who will not countenance anyone with GC views. This is the sinister end game of the religious-like zealotry of a vocal group, who have made themselves untouchable through piggy backing the LGB movement and weaponising suicide, mixed in with the cynical interests of unthinking corporate entities who are very happy to bandwagon the latest cause celebre if it will sell them more rainbow sandwiches or whatever, further mixed in with some fairly unsavoury individuals at the heart of silicone valley.

Famous GC people have been cancelled/attempted cancellation - which to me means prevented from making a living in their chosen sphere of work for believing in biological reality and/or sticking up for others' right to so do - off the top of my head: Graham Linehan (whose own Father Ted musical is being blocked unless he removes his name from it); actor, James Dreyfuss (whose name was removed from the Dr Who Master anthology); writers like Rachel Rooney and Gillian Philip (the latter dropped by her publisher, and who now drives and HGV for a living); choreographer, Rosie Kay, who had to leave the dance company she set up after the dancers she employed and nurtured turned on her and had the board remove her; Macy Gray, who had to recant sharpish; Dave Chapell, who luckily had Netflix to back him, but boy, did they try. None of these people did anything other than express their protected belief - not to mention one held by the vast majority of humans - that biological reality exists.

"I think his stepping away from Twitter is more to do with him having been recently exposed for dressing up in a naked fat suit to take the piss out of Jade Goody, complete with toothpaste on his mouth to resemble semen. He probably hoped that people would forget all about that appalling display of misogyny."

What the fuck?!

Me too, the hypocrisy is really ironic.