Comedy event cancelled at the Fringe because of Glinner?

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

I hadn't seen anything about this on X/Twitter previously, but apparently some activists have been putting pressure on the venue and they've cancelled an upcoming event called Comedy Unleashed because one of the comedians is Graham Linehan. How utterly pathetic. https://twitter.com/UnleashedComedy/status/1691476377793409024?s=20 Seems to be organised by/associated with Andrew Doyle, aka Titania McGrath.

<gasps>

hypocrisy is a crime now?

someone alert stonewall quick!

Who said it was a crime?

Have I entered the twilight zone??! Tatchell backing Glinner, AND the Equality Act???

Are we sure that's not a fake account 😯

'What does it take to get cancelled from the Edinburgh Fringe?' -

www.spectator.co.uk/article/graham-linehan-edinburgh-fringe-frankie-boyle/

A defence against discrimination then

I did discriminate against this person, but in my defence your honour he is a massive hypocrite. LOOK WHAT HE SAID ON TWITTER!

it might catch on. The world does seem to be increasingly mental

You seem confused.

I have basically made two claims.

1. GL is a hypocrite and so are his defenders.
2. GL (or whoever made the booking) does not have nearly as open and shut a legal case as people on here are making out.

The hypocrisy has nothing to do with the legal position. I've explained why I think the legal position is not as clear as posters here think, and the reasons for that have nothing to do with the hypocrisy.

Neither.

I want OJ to be banished to a cave but I realise my wants are incompatible with the law as it stands and as I live in a democratic society AND I am not self obsessed enough to believe that what I want should be basis of the law of the nation I am content to continue posting my opinion online without needing my opinion to be actioned by society

And as you mentioned before, you don't have a cave and can't put into action your hideous thoughtcrime. Wee OJ is spared!

There’s your problem.

You have a dodgy understanding of Forstater.

Shame the wheels of justice turn so slowly. Mumsnet needs a ‘remind me’ function (like Reddit has) so we can all thoroughly enjoy the ‘Told you so’ moment.

Quick Tip: Don’t get your info on legal matters from Stonewall.

Oh, I'm imagining the twitter posts by TRA's now.

'Gangs of Mumsnet users threaten to bundle wee OJ into a cave!!!'

'Transphobes are threatening to BANISH OJ! Oh, the humanity!!!!'

'FWR is a hotbed of cave banishment extremism!!!'

Sorry, I'll slink away now 😄

Please, just BANISH HIM ALREADY.

NB: this is neither command nor demand. Just personal opinion, not a cancellation attempt.

Luckily OJ’s career has been on a downward trajectory for some time now (ever since the Guardian deleted all those politician interviews that used to be on YouTube) so he’ll likely shuffle off to the wilderness under his own steam.

y have definitely argued some things

You want me to believe some stuff was said with providing sources or context

it doesn’t seem like much of a way to convince anyone of anything

does ‘ ermagawd he said x’ normally work for you?

It just let me vote. 94% of voters disagree with the cancellation

I see thy've found a new venue and are going to email it to ticket holders before the gig only presumably to avoid more trouble. It's interesting (not in a good way) to see the experience women have had to put up in order to meet broadened out to the wider population.

To the cave with him! <shove>

😬 was just supposed to be OJ

Yes, I wonder what men are making of getting the ‘gc women’ treatment?

What bit of my view do you think hinges on an incorrect reading of Forstater?

Utterly random comment but I swear I've had The Real Slim Shady song in my head all today after reading the Leith Arches statement.

'Can we have your attention please'
....
'Will the Real Slim Shady please stand up?'

I wonder if The Herald would be interested in running a ‘Should Owen Jones be Banished to a Cave’ poll?

Why do you think my aim is to convince you of anything?

I’ve set out why I’ve formed the view I have on the law. You can argue against it if you wish. Your call.

That Mary Burke’s presence on the bill means that GL wasn’t discriminated against for his views.

Disclosure of comms for the courtcase should clear that up - the most likely scenario is that no TRA’s had noticed MB’s upcoming performance so no one had complained about it and thus the venue were blissfully unaware that MB is a terf until after the Graham complaints began.

Unusual to have two anti-GCers on one thread. Did someone mess with the rota?

School holidays innit? Plenty of free time.

Given that you’re unable to provide evidence for your beliefs, engaging with them seems like a titanic waste of time

That’s not specifically related to Forstater though. Her employers didn’t argue that they had allowed others with the same views to remain contracted with the company so that line of argument isn’t addressed one way or another in Forstater.

So I’m not sure why you think that particular argument rests on an incorrect reading of Forstater.

What Forstater did address though was the relationship between belief and expression. And there (contrary to another posters false claim) they held that the fact that a belief is protected does not mean that any manifestation of that belief is also protected.