Neil Gaiman Accused Of Sexual Assault Pt II

[hihelenhi]

As we're nearly at the end of the first thread, let's make sure we keep the topic current.

There have been five women now who have spoken to podcasts about the predatory behaviour of Neil Gaiman.

First thread here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5112128-neil-gaiman-accused-of-sexual-assault

Magnificent

Marina Hyde is glorious. And always suspected she was a bit on the terfy side.

Excellent.

Good for Marina.

Marina comes out fighting! Sock it to them that woman. It’s good to know someone can see the wood for the trees.

I note also her comment about Gaiman hiding behind the lawyers for six months. Shame we can’t see those “we’ll sue you if you repeat/publish these claims” letters.

Bloody hell. I didn't realise it was that Rachel Johnson

Yes, that was one of the reasons some people used to try discredit the original piece.

Neil Gaiman sounds like a really shiiit lover. Selfish, inept, infantile, shit and urine obsessed, angry, insecure enough to be demanding to be called Master, unable to read body language, stinking of piss...

What a fucking loser. All the money in the world, all the women he's slept with or abused... and he couldn't treat the women he stuck his dick in like humans.

What a waste of a life.

So glad to see someone FINALLY pointing out the unquestioned ban on any hint of 'kink shaming' that has enabled abusers for far too long. Marina Hyde is always brilliant at cutting through.

I'm going off at a tangent here, but this element of the story intrigues me. I associate Rachel Johnson with fluffy pieces about having a bikini wax or finding the right kind of olives in Notting Hill, not proper, solid, shoe-leather investigative journalism. So I wondered why Scarlett approached Johnson rather than a journalist with an investigative track record, and then why Johnson took the story to Tortoise rather than the publication she normally writes for, namely the Mail.

I share your intrigue, @RoyalCorgi .

Good point. Maybe she realised that as a writer more used to trivia like that stuff she writes about in the Mail she would be out of her depth so took it Tortoise

She says that Scarlett first contacted her after an episode of her LBC podcast Difficult Women, asking if she could ask her a question. A week later she emailed her with all the allegations, but didn't share Gaiman's name, just that he was a famous man in his 60s etc. They then corresponded and she shared with Rachel all the details.

I guess maybe something Rachel said in the podcast triggered something, that she felt like she would understand and could be confided in.

With respect, and I'm no fan of Rachel's brother (who, let's remember doesn't own his sister or her career, political views or mind!), but Rachel Johnson is an experienced journalist with a career behind her like most journalists I've ever met, regardless of background. Lots of journalists have written "fluff" - they do it sometimes because most of them, even Johnsons, have to pay the bills. Here's what Wikipedia says about her:

"In 1989 she joined the staff of the Financial Times, becoming the first female graduate trainee at the paper, where she wrote about the economy.[13] She spent a year on secondment to the Foreign Office Policy Planning Staff in 1992–93. She moved to the BBC in 1994, but left to move to Washington, D.C., as a columnist and freelancer in 1997.[13]
She has written weekly columns for The Sunday Telegraph, The Daily Telegraph, the Evening Standard and other regular columns for Easy Living and She magazines, as well as the Financial Times.[13][14] She is a contributing editor of The Spectator and until 2009 was a weekly columnist on The Sunday Times and the Evening Standard, among other publications. She now writes a weekly column in The Mail on Sunday, a column for The Big Issue[15] and a column for The Oldie."

I think she should be counted on her own merits, tbh, not for who her brother is or what her political views are purported to be (and honestly, I really wouldn't assume with that family, necessarily - her mother certainly was no conservative although very posh). And Johnson did a good job bringing the story of Gaiman into the sunlight, alongside Paul Caruana Galizia, her colleague, who everyone is assuming must be 'the only serious one" here because of his mother. They both did an excellent job together, in my opinion.

If it wasn't for Rachel Johnson personally, this story wouldn't be anywhere, because nobody was willing to talk to Scarlett, so regardless of what she's written in the Mail or who her brother is, please, can we please just give the woman credit where it's due! Or we'll end up like the Redditors, still banging on about why she can't be trusted and must be evil because brother and TERF.

(Herewith ends the lecture!)

*hihelenhi *Just to clarify, I wasn't casting doubt on her credentials as a journalist (though I realise it probably looked like I was), and she's clearly done a good job here. But over time journalists become known for certain things, and this isn't her usual beat. I'm still interested in why she took it to Tortoise, when the Mail would, I imagine, love a story like that and can afford the lawyers' fees to see it through.

Fair enough. And it's true, that side of it is curious. But I wonder if she'd been doing other pieces for Tortoise - might have been a contacts/suitability thing also, and maybe to ensure it wasn't just treated as a piece of "DM fluff". It's a small outlet but interesting that Paul (who is more of an investigative journalist) was there and got involved. Also, I guess, the podcast side of it was different to what you'd get in the Mail.

Rachel had been a terf on radio for ages. Not fluffy. Not sure if I can dig up some examples but she's pretty direct in her shows.

Crucially, too, I think, (and of course any journalist worth their salt is going to have a nose for a good story) she did what I'd hope anyone would do when someone brings something to her directly like this.

Which is to TELL.

When the rest of the media and all the supposed progressives were busy turning blind eyes, singing Gaiman's praises and fawning over him. And crucially, had had it raised and had said to at least one the victims that "it wasn't a story". Well of course it bloody was. And some had tried to get it out there, while not knowing about each other.

and of course any journalist worth their salt is going to have a nose for a good story

You have reminded me of the time someone messaged Owen Jones during lockdown informing him that Dominic Cummings had been spotted in Barnard Castle, and Owen ignored it.

As you say, any journalist worth their salt...

Ha @RoyalCorgi is that true? That really is hilarious!

He tweeted about it at the time, but I can't find it anywhere now. Can anyone else remember seeing it? It's amazing that he didn't realise how bad it made him look.

I have found another reference to it, so it's not a fake memory, but just can't put my hands on the tweet itself:

x.com/GreatBritishGay/status/1564930086389817345

Interesting that the Marina Hyde column was allowed in the Guardian (unless...was it the Observer??) given their general take on the subject.

How could anyone fancy Neil Gaiman? A bit of Karma. Like the other misogynist Hanif Kureishi.

R J's own life experience may have meant she recognised a pattern.

Well, yes. I'm sure she's managed to turn many a blind eye herself, or has felt she's had to esp. re her father. But she has always struck me as being quite "on it" with regard to these topics. I found myself not that surprised she took it on, and I'd be interested to know what it was she said in that show that Scarlett responded to.

AFAIK, Owen Jones isn't a trained journalist, is he? Just an opinionated Oxbridge boy who went straight into writing "columns." Not trained via doing the police round, and the court round, or the local Gwent Herald, and so on.