Janice Turner puts the boot into @glinner

[chilling19]

Janice Turner's 'review' of Graham Linehan's book. Why would she do this?
archive.ph/72B9W

*do

I think he’s been very brave, and a stalwart defender of women and children.

But I also agree with Janice that throwing terms like Groomer around at parents of trans identifying kids (like David Tennant) is petty and nasty.

See also shouting on Twitter at Victoria Coren-Mitchell about transwomen on quiz teams on Only Connect.

He has been a great supporter to some, but actively unhelpful in other ways. I don’t think it’s disloyal or putting the boot in to think this.

I agree, but this piece was less this and more "I object to a man getting more visibility here than most women, and he didn't acknowledge me, her and her, and this organisation, and this one, and that one".

And worst of all, a snobbish disdain for his getting his hands dirty tactic.

We can't all write articles for the Times like Turner or academic critiques like Dr. JC Jones.
Some people are needed to get into the mud, and Linehan and KJK have taken this upon themselves.

I wonder how Linehan will feel in a decade when this ideology has petered out, there was no post mortem, it'll be like people came out of a fog.

Plausible deniability will be the new gaslighting, there'll be no equivalent of Nuremberg trials, or even phone hacking/Grenfell/Windrush/Covid inquiries or grand jury type takedowns.

At most, Russell Brand type stories about civic society in a moment of madness that once again sacrificed women and girls.

Linehan will always remember he was on the precipice, and those he argued against will have minimal comeuppance. I can't imagine how that will feel. How we'll all feel.

Yes I agree, he can be intemperate. However, Turner's 'review' seems unnecessarily personal.

'Some people are needed to get into the mud, and Linehan and KJK have taken this upon themselves.'

Yes indeed.

From the intro to the review:

Whatever online grief I’ve had in six years reporting on the medical transition of children, or rapists in women’s jails, I know that the slightest criticism of Graham Linehan will earn me far more. Ironic really, given that the first objective of what has evolved into the gender critical movement was to defy Stonewall’s mantra “no debate”.

So Janice welcomes debate and dissent in the gender-critical camp… but she blocks Glinner? Isn’t she contradicting herself there? Blocking someone is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la, I can’t hear you.

Sometimes Graham’s tone is abrasive, sometimes he seems obsessive and self-sabotaging, sometimes he goes too far with the Twitter rants. Through it all, though, is a man with his heart in the right place, raising awareness of extremely important issues that have been ignored by the great and the good for too long. He’s an important voice in the battle for women’s rights and I hope this review doesn’t deter anyone from reading his book and making up their own mind.

NEEDS MAIR BLING

MEBBE SOME BUNTIN

Real - on it 😂

Real - here you go

It's similar to Hadley Freeman's article a couple of weeks back. I'm not in total disagreement with them about Glinner's shortcomings, indeed he can be somewhat obsessive about the causes he involves himself in.

I think we need to bear in mind the context of the circumstances in which these articles are being written. Some of it may be personal but some of it is also about positioning for a seat at the table now Sir Keir is looking like a PM in waiting. Part of that is distancing anyone who is not 'reasonable and measured'.

Since the 2019 election there's been an ever so slight thawing towards the GC women who remain Labour supporters and members. Both Keir and Wes Streeting have made remarks that if you squint could be viewed as conciliatory or acknowledging women in a small way.

At the conference this week someone gave Jess Philips the green light to attend the LWD fringe event with Karen Ingala Smith (who I believe has been reinstated as a Labour member).

As the election looms we will see deeper splits amongst the 'GC' along political lines. If Kelly Jay stands against Keir Starmer as she has previously said she wants to I predict things will get particularly nasty on a personal level.

A number of people will want us to accept whatever fudge Labour come up with as a win for women so a line can be drawn and they can be welcomed back in to the fold of a moderate new Labour government and no longer be pariahs in their own party.

Blocking someone is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la, I can’t hear you.

I don’t think it is, Cautious. I think it’s “this is not stuff I want to engage with on my feed.” Particularly when the person has a habit of @-ing people into conversations

I am absolutely angry with my brothers for not being as vocal as they could have been. Could you imagine if even a few fearless well known individuals said something...anything?
Even those close to retirement, those with money behind them.

Plausible deniability now, plausible deniability in future. As for men, it's Linehan, and then...and then...well, who?

Sure, Ricky Gervais, and he's the closest male analogue to JKR, filthy rich and full of attitude. Dawkins now. But beyond this? Tumbleweed.

'A number of people will want us to accept whatever fudge Labour come up with as a win for women so a line can be drawn and they can be welcomed back in to the fold of a moderate new Labour government and no longer be pariahs in their own party.'

Not accepting the fudge. Labour can do one as far as I am concerned. And this from a die-hard Labour voter.

Politics. Never rewards the hardcore.

Look at Zelensky and Ukraine. 18 months ago, unanimity with the West, Poland especially.

Today? Zelensky snubbing Poland to sidle up to Germany, Poland also under massive pressure from Brussels and Washington.

There's no more brotherhood here.
And just wait until Trump wins next year.

My point is, that like political parties, the GC movement is a broad church, containing plenty of people who dislike each other, and disapproval of each others tactics.

I just think Turners piece is not so much hit piece as deeply disappointing hissy fit and declaration he's not classy enough for her.

I didn't feel the same way about Freeman's piece. That was her expressing concern he'd damaged his life over single minded doggedness. Turner's piece just feels nasty.

As a shop steward I had to represent a guy whose job was on the line - he had used council a computer for a private email iirc. One day a friend and I banged into him and he told us he'd taken his kids out of nursery as he wasn't sure he'd have a job in a month's time and they needed that money.

When he left my friend said ' he's a nice guy - but it's all he ever talks about '. Well yes , it would be wouldn't it? Graham's travails remind me of that man. Its his life and career being destroyed , of course it will seem all consuming.

AHM NO KEEN ON FUDGE CAKE AH PREFER A BIT O PIE

Glinner has lost so much in this fight. I think it has become all-consuming for him and I can understand if some people just disengage. But some of the criticism of him does come across like victim blaming - like, why does this abused person keep going on and on about abuse? Why would someone who lost their career, family, and reputation to TRAs go on and on about TRAs and their abuse?

Graham's book is lovely, so funny, and he is clearly a sensitive and lovely man. Everyone should read it.

JIST THE WAN VOLUME IS IT

I think Graham Linehan is a ruddy genius (see user name), but I swerve him on here and haven't signed up to his substack or watched his podcasts because he's always in broadcast mode, and frankly he says things that make me wince. I think it comes from personal pain, but I'm not obliged to be the audience for it.

I've bought his book and am reading it. He's a good writer, it's no hardship.

I think Janice Turner is right, but I'm not convinced taking to The Times to make her points was necessary.

Although it's good to see the book referenced in a mainstream national newspaper, so there is that.

People are complicated innit?

I largely agree with her about Glinner. I think he's a brilliant comedian, very brave and has been subject to appaling treatment but he's clearly been unwell and has behaved poorly at times.

None of that is relevant to a book review- she's written a review of his personality. Ironically she's doing exactly what she accuses Glinner of- grinding her own axe at the cost of making an effective point.

I haven't always agreed with the way Glinner has done things but I do think that he acknowledges that in the book - he says quite frankly that he realises that sometimes he was unnecessarily unpleasant and upset people and acknowledges that that hasn't helped.

People are complicated innit?

SPEAKFUR YERSEL HEN

I think he tends to go off half-cocked, and be very accusatory, when it's really not fair or appropriate. The David Tennant incident is a good example, it's not difficult to slightly modify your language to show the connections to safeguarding issues without basically calling someone a pedophile. The latter isn't effective, but also, maybe more importantly, it's not true. I am sometimes surprised that as someone who is a subtle writer, he doesn't manage to do this and I think it must be due to lack of reflection in the moment. There is good sense in the advise not to send letters, email, Twitter comments, in a hotheaded moment, but to reflect a bit first, for almost everyone. Social media of course encourages the opposite.

That being said, I really hate this "man, keep your nose in, this is a woman-issue" shit. Especially when it's clearly an all society issue with many different facets. There are men being directly affected by this, men have mums and sisters and wives and daughters and female friends, men have an interest in a just society, in medical malpractice, in a robust democracy. And in the next breath you will often have the same women who say are decrying how men don't support women's issues.

I also don't think that it's unreasonable that an autobiography mainly talks about the person the book is about.

Andrew Neil was huge and he apologized.

Of course it's a men's issue too. The first victims of this insanity were men ,well boys I suppose, the Riemer twins. Jazz Jennings is a man ffs.

But I think the sub conscious bias is because Graham is not from academe. He isn't a broadsheet journalist or features editor. Though no doubt his sex plays into it.