Hadley Freeman on Woman's Hour shortly

[RoyalCorgi]

Talking about why she left the Guardian!

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001fvx6

Interested about the “outside body” coming in & laying into HF in her absence.

This is what Stonewall did with Garden Court Chambers over Alison Bailey.

Just caught up.

Excellent from HF.

I wonder if LOJ will be moved to comment?

go Hadley!

I imagine there's quite a big crossover between Guardian readers and R4 listeners, many of whom will have not been properly aware of this issue. Until now.

Imagine how gleefully your average Guardian writer would have sunk their teeth into a tip-off that the Mail had told a black columnist they couldn't mention race at all.

Emma sounded a bit nervous at the point of the discussion about Jenni Murray!

I though she'd have rather that wasn't raised because she pretty much had to defend the 'bbc interviewers shouldn't have an opinion' line (which in general is a good thing) but it's something that she's all too aware constrains her personally.

💚💟💜

That was so worth the wait! Thank you Emma for having Hadley on and giving her free reign to let it all out.
All those years of frustration and disbelief when listening to woman's hour/reading the guardian- cathartically released in 15 minutes. Hadley managed to pack so much in to that short space of time.

The paranoia that it might get pulled isn't surprising with all that's come before. I still almost can't believe this happened this morning! Great start to the week.

Be interesting if Kath Viner does accept the invitation....

At first I was worried Hadley Freeman got it wrong when she said the Guardian hadn't reviewed either Kathleen Stock or Helen Joyce's books because there was a review of both on the website but the review was actually in the Observer not the Guardian.

It was interesting to me that Hadley wasn’t going to be deflected into using up her slot talking about anti-semitism in the Labour Party, as invited by EB, (a battle hopefully at least partly won?) when she had a chance at last to speak to the nation about the issues with GI (so much to do). I’m sure she feels passionately about both.

I'm remembering now the Woman's hour Twitter thread in the summer where they were inundated with suggestions for all the forbidden feminists and GC writers...

Does anyone know if it’s possible to archive this interview whilst it’s still available?

But bear in mind that if the BBC sends a copyright notice, youtube will take it down immediately.

"We will talk again I'm sure..." Emma says at the end, looking forward to it!

She got sooooo much into such a short space of time. Well done Hadley!

Listening now! What an opening.

Hadley was brilliant here. I feel the decision to cancel my Guardian sub having read it for decades entirely vindicated.

Question: what could the Guardian do now to get me/us/women generally back?

The Guardian might actually try aiming for some balance.I think that hope might be in vain though. And actually think that women's rights matter to women.

Twitter is full of "oh she left a newspaper and reckons she's be cancelled while being on national radio..."

None of them have listened.

Feel like a transcript is needed to quote what was said in this stonking interview.

Sally Hines is v upset. Bless.

Excellent interview! I don’t agree with HF and her take on Woody Allen, but this I am behind her 100%

'why aren't trans people on for balance'

What they mean is that a woman shouldn't be allowed to talk without males being given oversight.

This is an interesting article by Varth from 2016.
www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth

She writes about the scandal of the pigs head and David Cameron. The author who published the story had no proof.

“It’s up to other people to decide whether they give it any credibility or not,” she concluded. This was not, of course, the first time that outlandish claims were published on the basis of flimsy evidence, but this was an unusually brazen defence. It seemed that journalists were no longer required to believe their own stories to be true, nor, apparently, did they need to provide evidence. Instead it was up to the reader – who does not even know the identity of the source – to make up their own mind. But based on what? Gut instinct, intuition, mood? Does the truth matter any more?

Are you having a laugh? The graun is about as fucked as mermaids.

Yes, I know , I was just answering a question. I'm aware it won't happen.

I never know whether these people are wilfully stupid, or just the ordinary common-or-garden variety stupid. Hadley didn't say she was cancelled. She said the Guardian didn't allow her (or anyone else) to write articles on certain topics.

And obviously they didn't invite any TRAs on because Hadley was there to talk about her own experience at the Guardian. They did invite Kath Viner on, but she didn't respond.

When Grace Lavery was interviewed by WH, they didn't invite a gc person on for balance.