This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Defending Charlie Gilmour from Laurie Penny
by Jacob Bard-Rosenberg on Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 3:05am
Write a Note
Friends' Photos Tagged: Erin DeMuynck
The imprisonment of any protester is awful and miserable for the movement. It hits us hard, but our misery is nothing compared to what those who are imprisoned are forced to go through, along with their families and loved ones. It is certainly not an occasion to play out old minor feuds in the national press. It is not an occasion to act divisively, nor is the journalistic "scoop" of having previous disagreements with convicts any more than the undignified profiteering from the trauma of others. Yesterday, Laurie Penny published a piece about the sentencing of Charlie Gilmour on the New Statesman website (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/07/charlie-gilmourmonths-tabloid), which was chiefly a character assassination. Gilmour is accused by Penny (a journalist who considers herself not only part of the movement but the authentic voice of his generation) of being a “spoilt, selfish, drug-addled neo-aristocratic nihilist with daddy issues”, a “posh tosser”, a “massive prat”, and a “messed-up young idiot”, not to mention her implication that he has an alcohol problem. Jacob's Notes Notes About Jacob Browse Notes Friends' Notes Pages' Notes My Notes My Drafts Notes About Me Jump to Friend or Page Tagged Furthermore, in Penny’s description of Charlie’s actions on the 9th of December she begins to drive a wedge between good protesters and bad protesters; a division that serves no-one but the state and the judiciary. We must, at some point, accept that the question of how to combat capitalism or the state is a difficult one. One person’s answer of going on strike is different to another person’s taking part in black bloc, writing letters to the paper may seem to some to be enough, whereas others will start occupations. Without wishing to suggest a solution, we know that the vitality of our movement has thus far been based on many who have taken great personal risks, and who will at the hands of the judiciary pay dearly. As a movement, it is for us to defend all of them, rather than defending the few by throwing the rest to the lions. We call this solidarity. Whatever you may think of Charlie, he needs our support now. And our support is more important than getting a few more hits on a blog or your next writing contract. This is a plea for Laurie Penny’s piece to be taken down, and for all activists who are writing to think about these issues when reporting or responding to criminal sentencing. There is a message from Charlie’s friends and comrades at Cambridge here: http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/gilmour-gets-sixteen-mulcaire-gets-six Please do pass this message on and feel free to republish should you so wish. Subscribe Jacob Bard-Rosenberg's Notes Report Like Comment Share Guy Aitchison and 76 others like this. Eleanor Haskins-Griffiths "From time to time, the idea of a world where you can be locked up for being a massive prat is appealing" ?? Yesterday at 3:40am Like 1 person Gabriel Balfe Sorry Jacob, but this seems ridiculous. From other accounts besides Laurie's I've heard similar things to how he acted when he came down to the occ. I've never met the guy and couldn't care less really, but she is nonetheless arguing against the sentencing, something which you do not mention at all. The “spoilt, selfish, drug-addled neo-aristocratic nihilist with daddy issues” point is referring to the POV of people who would categorise him as such. While she is giving a personal view of him, having actually met him, I would hardly characterise the piece as "throwing him to the lions". All in all, this note seems just spiteful. Why single her out? Why not the right wing press articles, or if we want to look at stupid leftists, the LibCon post on the matter? I'm really fucking tired of leftists - GOOD leftists - dedicating their time to fucking over other lefties, maybe because they're in the MSM game, or because their views may not be as coherent or as antisentimental as theirs. Is your aim to just try and win over your bog standard LP-liking liberals? Is it to make other radical lefties feel good about not participating in the MSM spectacle? Or do you think unlikely I know - that you can convince rightwing sceptics of LP that because radical lefties are sceptical of LP as well they should come over? I'm as sceptical of the MSM game as anyone else, but there could be a lot more valuable time taken up messing up the idiots who play it from the right. I don't mean this in anyway to preclude my respect for you as an activist (and a blogger), but this really seems silly. Yesterday at 4:01am Like 6 people Richard Brodie Gabriel, perhaps you couldn't care less, but here are some people who might: charlie; charlie's close friends; charlie's family; people you don't know who are facing prison sentences and consequent press attention; people you do know who ar... See M ore Yesterday at 11:03am Like 18 people Rona Lorimer Gabriel, no, she isn't, Laurie is reinforcing these views in my opinion-- I am supportive of lots of the things Laurie writes, but in this case, I would suggest that her article is spiteful, rather than Jacob's. Sorry Laurie, you don't have my support on this One of the most awful aspects of criminal sentencing is objectification: that your entire person is forced to submit to authoritarian institution, and in Charlie’s case this has been made worse by the media coverage, ever intent on portraying this young man as a mere set of supposedly despicable attributes rather than a person. The job of the radical journalist should be first and foremost to remember that he is human, that he as a human is suffering at the hands of an oppressive state, and to give voice to that suffering and oppression. The job of the activist-journalist is not to join in with the degrading games of the bourgeois press.
2 Likes Tagged: Erin DeMuynck
1 Like 1 Comment Sponsored Create an Ad
Wild Hollyoaks Girls! free-screensaver.co.uk Get this Free Screensaver, containing cute, famous and wild Hollyoaks crew girls in HD!
Wordpress Blog Setup prowpinstall.com Choose from over 200 Premium Wordpress themes and we will install and setup your blog. Install, setup, plugins and more. I Love Wordpress Wanted! All lovers of WordPress software, websites and plugins all over the world... LIKE below and join the fun. Like 992 people like this. Amanda's Online Lingerie and... Small business
Like 193 people like this.
rather than Jacob's. Sorry Laurie, you don't have my support on this one. Yesterday at 11:04am Like 3 people Laurie Penny It's not about 'good protester, bad protester' Jacobthe point is that Charlie isn't a protester at all. He's a messed up kid who has been punished too harshly. In fact, I'm anxious to make that point clearer, and I'm doing a second draft because on reading back, I thought it was a bit harsh. Yesterday at 11:05am Like 3 people Laurie Penny And secondly- please stop with this 'voice of a generation' bullshit. You know perfectly well that I've never called myself that and I think it's an unhelpful idea. 3 people Yesterday at 11:06am Like Richard Brodie Laurie - Charlie is/was a protesters. Here's the statement from Cambridge Defend Education, the protest group Charlie was a part of in November-December: http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/gilmour-gets-sixteen-mulcairegets-six 5 people Yesterday at 11:07am Like Laurie Penny I'm sorry Jacob, but if you're going to talk about writing irrelevant character assasinations based on personal interactions to up your own blog hits, I don't think it's my blog you need to be looking at. 1 person Yesterday at 11:12am Like Rona Lorimer My main objection to your article, Laurie, is that you openly disparage Charlie in the first half and it is only after this rather substantial character assault that you begin to criticise the tabloid press and the legal system. Sort of. I mean, considering that you call Charlie a 'prize dickhead', and also concede that there are times when 'the idea of a world where you can be locked up for being a massive prat is appealing', your critique seems a bit shallow. Do you not see that your lack of solidarity at a time like this reinforces the views you claim you want to counteract? There's a term for this which I can't remember -- occupasium? occupatium? (Danny Hayward, help me?) Anyway, it's the idea of saying what you then go on to not say. (Adam does it in the garden of Eden 'if this were toil, yet with thee were sweet'). Claiming not to say is not enough -- 'I'm not a racist, but....'. You are used to character-based attacks, surely you know by now that they are spiteful and unhelpful. 2 people Yesterday at 11:34am Like Owain Shave I am perfectly happy with Gilmour going to jail. I care more about whether or not he gets sent down from Girton, but it's a start. 1 person Yesterday at 11:39am Like Rona Lorimer "the point is that Charlie isn't a protester at all. He's a messed up kid who has been punished too harshly" "I could tell that he and some of his Cambridge friends had turned up to party, not to protest." "Some posh tosser who didn't represent the movement was giving us all a bad name. Now he's been sent down on their behalf, along with many genuine protesters," " It's not about throwing a rubbish bin at a Roller, it's about throwing a rubbish bin at a convoy containing the heir to the throne." -- Charlie's sentencing IS political, and is part of a wider attack on protesting, as the final quote here suggests. Yesterday at 11:41am Like 1 person Laurie Penny Of course it's political Rona, and I've said so. But there's a difference between solidarity and saying things that you know aren't true to maintain the image of a cause. As a movement we need to be truthful and honest as well as robust. I take on board your point that personal attacks hurt, and I will be tonight the piece down, but I'm not prepared simply to say 'charlie is one of us so we protect him' and erase the real harm he has caused the movement. It smacks of censorship and is unhelpful. Yesterday at 11:49am Like 1 person Rona Lorimer --no, it's not about lying, or saying things that aren't true. It's about not publishing an article days after Charlie's sentencing which insults him in such a petty way. It's about sensitivity to Charlie, his friends and family; it's about not cashing in on a moment to play out your personal feud. And if you are aware of the label you have been given ( 'voice of a generation' ) you ought to consider this before making such an attack. I don't want to censor you at all Laurie. But in contrast to the mass of protesters you speak of, I didn't ask you to speak for me and I'm happy for someone like Charlie to represent me. Yesterday at 11:56am Like 13 people Sofie Buckland No Laurie, what's unhelpful is suggesting the lofty ideals of journalistic truth require you to personally attack someone who has just been sent to prison, just because you've met them and have some nice inside story on their character flaw... S ee M ore 12 people Yesterday at 11:59am Like Jacob Bard-Rosenberg Laurie, this has nothing to do with me; it is about what /you/ have done, and /your/ piece. You ought to have an understanding that the New Statesman is not a good place to have discussions about the most minor internal politics of the move... See M ore Yesterday at 12:04pm Like 10 people Greg Brown Laurie, *please* tell me how littering an article with childish slurs ("dickhead", "tosser", "epic dickwaddery", so on so forth) furthers either your
own political agenda or helps to serve the truth about the political sentencing against Charlie in any way. Once again your writing has led so many people to question your ethics and methodology rather than discuss the real issues at hand. This is very serious. And before we go there, this has absolutely nothing to do with you as a person or as a woman writer, so please don't wheel out the "personal attack" spiel. Yesterday at 12:06pm Like 2 people Laurie Penny I agree that the piece was overly spiteful, and as soon as I make it to a proper PC with internet access I'll be sending the new draft. I accept that, and I didn't mean to cause extra fuss. But Sofie, you know as well as I do that there was a lot of other stuff that happened that night- FAR worse things than a little altercation that I just thought was quite funny at the time- that I haven't spoken about and won't be putting in the public domain, precisely because I care about Charlie's family. Even though the things I saw fucking disgusted me and demeaned all of us, IMHO. There is a fine line between solidarity and untruthfulness. And I am not producing missives from the party, I'm putting my own opinion out there based on what I know and what I saw. My opinion is that Charlie is a stupid prat with a lot of problems who let himself and a lot of others down, but that he doesn't deserve to go to prison, that his sentencing is political. That's what I've said in the piece and it's what I'll continue to say. Yesterday at 12:12pm Like 1 person Laurie Penny Essentially, on rereading, the piece isn't inaccurate, it's just unkind- and there's no reason to be unkind. 1 person Yesterday at 12:14pm Like Michael Chessum It was definitely an error to put this stuff up on NS. The line the article takes isn't totally horrific from an objective point of view: i.e. the narrative that "he's an idiot but he doesn't deserve this" is quite commonplace and not very remarkable. (Though the use of language is definitely just silly at times). What makes it bad is precisely the fact that its author is supposed to be on Charlie's side, at least to the extent that they should not be making negative 'insider' knowledge public - especially at such a sensitive time. I also think it's unfair to say that Charlie wasn't a protester. Quite a lot our movement is populated by people who weren't 'serious' protesters - they weren't protesting the government's HE funding strategy with detailed policy positions, they were young and fed up and bored by their political elites. The details of the interactions between you and Charlie in the article are things that you would only have knowledge of by being inside the UCL occupation: putting them in the public domain is a case of opportunistic eavesdropping. In other words, the central antagonism is between being a columnist of-and-for the movement, and being a mainstream journo. This episode is a lesson in where that line is. That said, I still have respect for a lot of the stuff you write, Laurie. Don't give it up. Yesterday at 12:17pm Like 5 people Sofie Buckland "But Sofie, you know as well as I do" - I'm not interested in continuing this debate, I've said my piece. But I just want to disown this. I'm not happy being made an insider to anything, actually. Yesterday at 12:20pm Like 3 people Greg Brown Laurie, I'm not sure what happened that night which was so horrific so I'll have to accept whatever point you think you're making. But I simply don't see how it's relevant to the events on the 9th which Charlie has been convicted for. The man is suffering a political sentence for reckless protesting, and I can't see how tying any other (unrelated!) actions of his on an earlier date to the issue helps anyone. For me it is tantamount to defamation. Yesterday at 12:34pm Like 3 people Danny Hayward (Rona Lorimer: I think the closest rhetorical figure is proslepsis, where the author gives full details of acts which s/he then claims to pass over. I had to look that up.) But, BTW, or by the by, there is an important question about the relationship of style to argument here. The argument boiled down to its gelatinous substrate is that CG's character is patently and absolutely irrelevant to his treatment by the fine old men of the British judiciary, doing their guardian-of-the-moral-character-of-the-nation schtick between meals at the Ivy. We all agree about this: if we didn't we would be the direct advocates of a legal system wielded as an instrument of convenience by the ruling class. I mean that we would effectively be fascists. But to flesh out the argument with a scroll of bilious reminisce about CG's character ('opinion'), only then to deny its relevance to the issue at hand, and *especially within the current media climate of truly fascistic ad hominem vindictiveness*, is to undermine the argument by the whole focus and colouration of its presentation. This gives a good *reason* not to dwell fulsomely on details of CG's conduct, but it doesn't I hope smack of censorship: the point is just simply that we have a collective responsibility not to undermine one another by letting our literary jeu d'esprits eclipse our case against what Laurie rightly recognises as political misuse of the legal system. It's important to have these arguments; they don't have to be uncivil. Yesterday at 12:49pm Like 7 people Jon Moses I think it's right to question whether the NS is the best forum for anecdotes about Charlie, at the same time I'm not convinced facebook notes is the best forum to raise these issues either. We can all do better than this in the way we treat each other. Yesterday at 1:01pm Like 8 people
Michael Chessum ^Yes^ Yesterday at 1:04pm Like
Sofie Buckland The article is public, the robust (but not, as Danny says, uncivil) political debate on it should be too. Yesterday at 1:08pm Like 3 people Jacob Bard-Rosenberg Jon Moses, what would be better - I have used fb here because I don't think this is great material to put on a blog - I am making entirely practical demands for something reflecting on the movement, not something that benefits from a big public debacle. Yesterday at 1:08pm Like 7 people Laurie Penny I've taken your comments into account and produced a new draft which, I feel, is far less about the ad-hominems - whilst preserving the original sense of 'he's a dickhead but he didn't deserve it'. I hope that's alright. I'll apologise to his mum on Twitter too. Yesterday at 1:12pm Like 3 people Samuel Gaus Now let's all be friends! Yesterday at 1:17pm Like 2 people Sofie Buckland Point: missed. Yesterday at 1:23pm Like 3 people Jacob Bard-Rosenberg Sam - this has nothing to do with friendship. As people who have commented here know, friends of mine come in for far worse criticism. Yesterday at 1:24pm Like 2 people Samuel Gaus Success! Yesterday at 1:26pm Like
Laurie Penny No Sofie, I haven't missed the point, I just don't agree with you. One of those things is not like the other. Yesterday at 1:41pm Like 1 person Sofie Buckland "I hope that's alright" (above) is not equal to "I actually disagree with you all, am disregarding your critique and superficially changing some of the 'mean' bits to look like I've responded to criticism". Sounded like you'd missed the point. If it's a disagreement, then fine, but it's not now 'alright'. Yesterday at 1:44pm Like 4 people Halim Boudjeltia I don't understand everyone problem with the article, I read it twice and feel that it works on its own terms. Either you agree with Laurie Penny's overall point and feel that she was too harsh (which is fine) or you fundamentally disagree with what she's saying in which case there is no point in a re-draft. Reading through these comments it seems that you just want to suppress a view that might hinder "solidity" amongst the student activists, but according to Laurie's piece she doesn't regard Charlie Gilmore as an activist (which puts the personal attacks into perspective) and most importantly I don't think she wallows in them for too long, she qualifies these with a well-reasoned argument against his long incarceration. And lastly just because something can be used against your group doesn't mean it shouldn't be divulged, so we should censor ourselves so that a third=party can't use it as ammunition? Surely it's best to lead by example and draw a distinction between peaceful activists and the very small minority of wannabe anarchists. Truth should transcend ideology and politics, you should be able to write what you want without the fear of straying from the party line, if you don't agree then go and work for News Corp. Yesterday at 1:57pm Like 1 person Laurie Penny I don't disagree with you all though. I think the piece was too harsh, and have changed it accordingly- that part of the criticism, I accept. What I don't accept is that we shouldn't say 'charlie is a dickhead' in public. I'm in the business of journalism, not pro-movement propaganda, sorry. Yesterday at 2:06pm Like 1 person Greg Brown Halim, you're missing the point now too. Whether or not Laurie likes Charlie as a person has *absolutely fuck all* to do with his sentencing, and does not present her (or anyone) with the opportunity to tell the world how much of a tit she thinks he is. That is not journalism! Yesterday at 2:06pm Like 6 people Omar Bongo We probably should be civil when talking about these issues but right now I really don't feel like being after I feel Laurie has shamed herself, the left and Charlie with her fucking idiotic article. I spend time defending Laurie, but the hypocrisy of someone who whines on facebook about an army of malicious trolls waiting to tear her down, then only a couple of days later lurches at the chance to gain some journalistic capital and trolls someone persecuted and vulnerable is disgusting. There's the sense you're being horribly two faced as an individual who in private praises and asks after Charlie incessantly, but in public will so gladly benefit from his lynching - there's also the fact it's just so fucking obvious that ALL the character assassinations of Charlie all over the press are only EVER written in order to damn the cause you purportedly fight for. Why else would you bother? As someone who is seen as, regardless of whatever you may say, "the voice of" this generation (there are people up here where I am in Glasgow who seem to think so) it's shocking you're so unable to take some responsibility and grow up. Your article is of the same moral standard as the people who make personal attacks on you in order to further their political agendas. In fact, it's even worse because you're trading off both your own political agenda and moral integrity in order to tell some
shit anecdote. It's not truth in any meaningful or important sense of the word, it's fucking gossip. It would have easy to write a good article about this sentencing, you know, with research, context, facts. One like http://mediocredave.wordpr ess.com/2011/07/15/memoria ls/ - instead you wrote some tabloid wank showing off how you party in London in occupations. To try and justify what you've done as you're noble quest for truth telling is obscene. You might just as well hacked his phone if you're going to continue in that vain. Unless you take that article down or apologize for it, you're a troll, just as bad as Paul Staines, Andy Coulson or any News Corporation journalist. I intended to send you a private message after I read your tweets, and then again when I saw your article, but after seeing this whole discussion with you trying to justify yourself - here is just as good a place as any. It seems all of our standards are quickly sinking at the moment, why stop. I am very pro-Jacob's "practical demands for something reflecting on the movement". This whole thing is disgusting and depressing. Yesterday at 2:07pm Like 25 people Jacob Bard-Rosenberg what he said. 5 people Yesterday at 2:10pm Like Greg Brown HEATHCOTE YES, been slowly seething all day deciding what to say to Laurie but you have it all. 5 people Yesterday at 2:13pm Like Greg Brown BOOM Yesterday at 2:13pm Like Greg Brown love scb Yesterday at 2:13pm Like
Halim Boudjeltia Greg, it seems that ANY disagreement with this embittered chorus is "missing the point". The concept of journalism isn't a one-dimensional, it's multi-faceted and fluid. There is a difference between someone not sharing your opinion and div... S ee M ore 2 people Yesterday at 2:35pm Like Richard Drayton Laurie, I think you understand that a serious mistake was made, and I don't want to hammer you further on it. But I think you need to be more self-aware that in your NS column and on your twitter feed you now carry very heavy responsibili... See M ore 3 people Yesterday at 2:37pm Like Sofie Buckland Just opened the Sunday Times to see a page 3 splash about Charlie Gilmour's complex and painful family history. But if it's all true it's ok, they're just doing their journalistic duty, yes? Halim, you can't have it both ways - either you're for free discussion or you can accuse us all of undemocratically attempting to shut someone up just by disagreeing. On 'trivial' see Richard's comments above. 1 person Yesterday at 2:41pm Like Laurie Penny I'm sorry you're upset, Heathcote. But if you'll look, I have accepted that the attack part of the article was horribly bad form,and that - as you and Rona said- I have no right to complain about nasty attacks on me by people on the left if I'm just going to do the same to someone else who can't defend himself. I've changed the piece and apologised in public and to Polly in private. There's not much more I can do. Again, I apologise. At the end of the day, though, Charlie behaved like a prize idiot, and I'm not going to retract that sentiment, because it's true, and I'm not going to be bullied into doing so. In fact, I think that being honest about that, whilst withholding the worst bits, helps the movement rather than harms it. I understand that you all think I'm some sort of heartless bitch now but I do actually care about Charlie, about Polly, and about you, and that's why I've held stuff back and changed and apologised for the unecessary ad-hominem. I do take criticism on board, but I'm not going to be coralled into changing the whole line or taking the piece down. If you'll notice, the whole argument of the article is that Charlie didn't deserve to go to jail, and that the sentencing was political, and that it's not a crime to be young and stupid. Over the next few years, as more direct action is needed, there are going to be a lot of things I'm going to have to risk my reputation defending, and I'll do so gladly. And not calling out idiocy when I see it will damage any efforts I intend to make to defend a principle. Oh, and lastly, please don't talk to me about how I'm doing all this to get money or fame or gain capital or to be the voice of a generation. I'm a fucking good writer and I could have made a career in fluffy cultural crit if I liked- instead I have risked my reputation, my health and my personal safety time and time and time again to defend you all, against all professional advice I was receiving, I've sacrificed a huge fucking amount for you lot, not just because you're my friends, but because I believe what you're doing is fundamentally just, and right, and true. Yesterday at 2:42pm Like 4 people Sofie Buckland "I understand that you all think I'm some sort of heartless bitch now". No, we just think you're wrong. It's not personal. That's not 'bullying' or 'coralling' you - you are, as ever, like everyone, free to ignore any criticism you receive or reply in defense. Characterising it in these terms veers a little close to an attempt to shut it down. Yesterday at 2:46pm Like 1 person Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk "I'm in the business of journalism, not pro-movement propaganda, sorry." - Laurie Penny. It has troubled me since I first encountered Laurie Penny that this was a fact ignored by her friends in 'the movement'. She sells stories - not news
... S ee M ore Yesterday at 2:52pm Like
Richard Drayton @Laurie I don't think you are at all heartless, or glory or money seeking. I think you are, if you pardon me saying this, a 20 something year old person who is still quite young and still only gradually becoming aware of her public role. What this thread is about, I think, is all the stakeholders in the public LP reminding you of everything and everyone you now write and speak for. @Everyone else LP has admitted that something went wrong there. Give her some time to reflect on all this and come back with something. 2 people Yesterday at 2:53pm Like Laurie Penny Sofie you make it sound like all I wrote was a personal attack. The whole point of the piece was to make it clear that the sentencing was harsh, political and unfair, however twattishly Charlie acted. And that's the impact it's had, not 'feeding into the right wing narrative'. I'm not ever going to make a useless ad hominem attack again, I shall serve as I'd like to be served, but really, be fair. 2 people Yesterday at 2:56pm Like Greg Brown Halim - since when were personal attacks ever a good facet of journalism? You're /still/ missing the point. Journalism is not multi-faceted and fluid to the extent that it gives any writer free reign to say whatever they like without any re... See M ore Yesterday at 2:56pm Like 1 person Sofie Buckland I can't find where I said all you wrote was a personal attack, or implied it. For me this isn't about 'never ad hominem'. It's what Greg said ^^ 2 people Yesterday at 3:00pm Like Gabriel Balfe Okay, second look at this. My first point was written at the end of a very drunken night, so apologies for not really getting on what seems to be the main point, which seems to be - if I'm not mistaken - the power imbalance of Laurie's position to air certain personal views, however justified or unjustified as they may be in private, over a persecuted man, which I would agree with. Halim: "Surely it's best to lead by example and draw a distinction between peaceful activists and the very small minority of wannabe anarchists." This is abhorrent. Halim: "Truth should transcend ideology and politics, you should be able to write what you want without the fear of straying from the party line, if you don't agree then go and work for News Corp." The point is not the Truth (capital-T intended). To start cloaking a blogpiece with the noble language of intrepid journalism is stupid. This isn't about censoring what isn't good for the movement, but the simple morality of using a national platform to air grievances against someone in no equivalent position. The whole thing has obviously gotten very personal, so without going into this any further I'll simply say I hope everything is okay with you Heathcote, with Charlie and the rest of the family x 1 person Yesterday at 3:03pm Like Halim Boudjeltia Sofie, my problem wasn't with you guys disagreeing but your angry calls for Laurie to shut down her article and apologize. The Right Wing press doesn't need Laurie's article to qualify their biased views, oh yes let's combat bias with more ... S ee M ore Yesterday at 3:03pm Like 1 person Samuel Gaus Just thought I'd comment again to let everyone know I'm still reading. Going to work now. My boss texted me last night that I need smarter trousers. The night before! What a wanker. 8 people Yesterday at 3:06pm Like Michael Sayeau "I'm in the business of journalism, not promovement propaganda, sorry." See, there's a statement that flips over as the occassion warrants. 4 people Yesterday at 3:07pm Like Sofie Buckland Halim, it's a bit ludicrous to suggest disagreement is ok but suggestions on how someone might make amends if they accept said criticisms are out of order. As for clear and concise, see original post. 1 person Yesterday at 3:10pm Like Halim Boudjeltia Gabriel, your threshold for what is abhorrant must be very low. You don't know what Laurie's intention before writing the article, to say she's "cloaking" suggests malevolence and that is your own interpretation. Sofie, what I read were not suggestions, but outright demands. I agree that the original post was clear and concise, I was referring to the comments, that's why I said comments. For proof, see my previous post. 2 people Yesterday at 3:18pm Like Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk Halim, my point that people should "wake the fuck up" referred - I thought clearly - to my concerns that one corporate journalist should be provided unfettered access without the consent of some of those whom it affects, while other corpora... S ee M ore Yesterday at 3:23pm Like 3 people Rona Lorimer "I've sacrificed a huge fucking amount for you lot, not just
because you're my friends, but because I believe what you're doing is fundamentally just, and right, and true. " If you really believe in this, Laurie, then this is a pointless separation between you and everyone else. If you believe in protesting, then it's no sacrifice, is there? no need to attach debt to a relationship where there isn't any. Yesterday at 3:25pm Like 18 people Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk To clarify: I encourage people to slag Laurie off at will, as she may do in return. I don't wish to censor anyone. What's important is that she is a corporate journalist and, as such, chose to prioritise wealth, esteem and notoriety over friendship and camaraderie some time ago. Yesterday at 3:28pm Like 1 person Michael Sayeau Laurie knows full well what the problem is here. The papers / magazines want a sexy story - one with dirt, meanness, personal invective, whatever. If she'd played the argument straight, it'd not be sexy enough to draw the punters, please th... S ee M ore Yesterday at 3:29pm Like 9 people Halim Boudjeltia Matt I apologize that I hijacked what you said, I had a lot of branches of the discussion to address and may have missed the overall context x Yesterday at 3:37pm Like 1 person Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk No worries Yesterday at 3:39pm Like 1 person Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk BTW tho, you just kissed a 'wannabe annarchist' Yesterday at 3:46pm Like 3 people Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk Shit, does that count as rape, like with the Palistinian dude in Israel? Yesterday at 3:47pm Like 1 person Richard Drayton I wish everyone would back off from these ad feminam attacks on LP. She made a serious error and we have taken her to task on this. She admits there is a problem and is thinking it all through now. There really is no need to attack her as being a "corporate journalist", its both unfair and unproductive. She is on our side. Yes she is at a dangerous crossroads as a journalist: does she take the road which leads to Polly Toynbee or heaven-forfend Julie Burchill, a kind of Polly Filla of the left who drifts into company with the right, or does she take the road in which she keeps company with Seumas Milne and Gary Younge? It is our role to welcome and encourage her on the latter path. Yesterday at 3:48pm Like 2 people Laurie Penny Rona- I'm not trying to say 'you guys owe me'. I'm trying to say that all this stuff about me being in it for my career or whatever is just not true, and it's hurtful. New Statesman are currently not happy with changing the draft, so I think the best I can do is issue a full apology on my Penny Red blog.I'm still working on getting it changed or removed and will keep you all updated. Yesterday at 4:09pm Like 1 person Halim Boudjeltia I don't mind kissing a wannabe anarchist, no air quotes needed either, as I don't know many real anarchists who have been to uni and are on facebook. the israel palestine connection is mind-boggling. And I think the 7 minutes between your 'no worries' comment and your retrospective spiteful corruption of a simple and sincere gesture is amusing, I was trying to be contrite and you shat on it. Go you. Yesterday at 4:09pm Like 2 people Sofie Buckland 'I don't know many real anarchists who have been to uni and are on facebook' - see a large number of commenters/comrades above for an education in this regard Yesterday at 4:15pm Like 3 people Laurie Penny Matt- I'm sorry, 'corporate journalist'? I'm not corporate anything, I'm freelance. No contract. Get your facts right. Yesterday at 4:17pm Like 3 people Deterritorial Support Group lol Yesterday at 4:22pm Like 14 people Halim Boudjeltia my definition of what a real anarchist is clearly differs from yours, this was clear in my earlier post when I referred to the violence in the protests, which matt lifted to make an infantile remark. Stop overlooking key words in my posts to selectively reason. Well Laurie have you got a phone contract, I'm afraid that still counts, you're a corporate shill. Seriously though, even if Laurie was on contract, so the fuck what? What's wrong with using corporate means to get your message across, record labels, publishing - would Noam Chomsky object to his books being sold in Ottakers if it means that the general public can read his stuff? Yesterday at 4:26pm Like Guy Aitchison not much to add to the above. very nasty comments about Charlie that should never have been published. Charlie *is* a protester and his sentencing *is* draconian and political (even the right-wing press are calling it harsh) - everything else is Daily Mail bullshit. Yesterday at 4:37pm Like 2 people David Broder Laurie - " I'm not corporate anything, I'm freelance. No
contract".... Halim - "What's wrong with using corporate means to get your message across" - nothing, if you exploit those means in order to promote a message in solidarity with the movement, rather than use your knowledge of the movement to help feed the corporate media's attacks against it. Loads of young people may be dicks or drink lots or whatever - but the only possible reason the media would be interested in describing CG as such is to discredit and misrepresent the left. Whatever her intentions Laurie's piece feeds this middleclass liberal disdain for our movement, whether she is on a contract or does it freelance is hardly the point. Yesterday at 4:41pm Like Laurie Penny 'His name was Charlie Gilmour. His name was Charlie Gilmour. His name was Charlie Gilmour'-?? Yesterday at 4:47pm Like 1 person Laurie Penny Right, well, the post is now updated as far as I could persuade the editor on duty- see what you think. I've taken out the pointless attacks because they were nasty. I'm going to apologise again on Twitter. And that's all I can do. 3 people Yesterday at 5:24pm Like Lev Taylor Sorry, genuinely not trying to be difficult, what were the changes that were made? Some of the words that people objected to like "prat" and "dickhead" are still there, but the tone does seem different. I'm not asking to cast a judgement on it, just for clarity. 1 person Yesterday at 5:33pm Like Lev Taylor Sorry, no, mine hadn't refereshed, the difference is clear. Yesterday at 5:35pm Like 2 people Francis Nicholson Are we all ad homineming LP for ad hominems? If you read the post, then the thread, then the post again, it's pretty clear that LP is being sentenced with the crime of sentencing. Yesterday at 6:17pm Like 1 person Milo Mariposa Ay que lastima Yesterday at 6:34pm Like Greg Brown i want to say that jacob is a cunt but i think that'd be a bit too much to throw in right now Yesterday at 8:21pm Like 5 people Sofie Buckland If Jacob was imprisoned I definitely wouldn't tell anyone he's a cunt, in solidarity Yesterday at 8:22pm Like 3 people Sofie Buckland Good thing he remains a free man Yesterday at 8:25pm Like 1 person Greg Brown BREAKING NEWS: Sir Paul Stephenson has resigned over Laurie2gate. Yesterday at 8:27pm Like Sofie Buckland He actually resigned over Cuntgate but it's taken him this long to get through all Glen Mulcaire's notes on it Yesterday at 8:28pm Like 1 person Greg Brown Just listened to his voicemail, he thinks Laurie should take the article down too. Yesterday at 8:29pm Like 5 people Polly Samson I've been thinking about Laurie Penny's piece. I was initially shocked by the spiteful tone but on reflection I think the most important thing is that people engage with the outrageous sentencing of Charlie, Francis Fernie and all the student protesters to come. I believe they are all to be shoved before the same judge. The fact that Laurie Penny so clearly disliked Charlie made her point about the sentencing much stronger and her piece of more interest than it would've been if she was his best mate. I don't think she threw any extra tidbits to the machine. Charlie was in a downward spiral of nihilism and despair at the time of the protests - he had already played straight into their hands and as he said to me last week: if he hadn't been the prize dickhead they'd have found someone else. 2 people Yesterday at 8:39pm Like Milo Mariposa La solidaridad con mi hermana Yesterday at 9:00pm Like Laurie Penny Thanks Polly. Really appreciate you taking the time to write this, you must have so much to cope with at the moment. My thoughts with you as I said in messages xx 1 person Yesterday at 9:02pm Like Laurie Penny By the way, I do know I've been a prize dickhead too. Just for the record. I'm sorry everyone. I'll be better than this in the future. Yesterday at 9:05pm Like 2 people Jas Mann This thread is hilarious 4 people Yesterday at 10:15pm Like Will Wearden Wow - where do you begin with this? Perhaps Laurie Penny's article is particularly harsh and uncompromising (I can definitely understand how it could be seen as turning on one's own); however, I am becoming increasingly disturbed by how man... See M ore 22 hours ago Like 2 people Sofie Buckland Will isn't the thing that's disturbing you just 'lots of people are getting more anticapitalist, in an organised fashion'? 10 hours ago Like 1 person Lisa Maria Idge The job of the 'radical' journalist is to tell the truth as they see
it. 'Journalism' with blind faith and a refusal to analyse anything because of solidarity with any organisation, is not journalism at all. It is propaganda. And 'the movement' is not yet a movement with a right to sit above criticism. And I think Laurie's abilityt to see something uncritically, alongside arguments about why her feelings about Gilmour not driven byallegiance to the tight social network that is 'the movement'-possibly made the case stronger to those whose feelings weren't hurt. 8 hours ago Like 1 person Vik Chechi cool story bro 8 hours ago Like Charleigh Blue firstly i'd like to apologise that I may be about to reignite an argument that is obviously drawing to a close but I was working and really cant let this one slide. 8 hours ago Like Jordan Savage @Laurie, very, very few things I've ever read from "within" the movement have made me angrier than this article. Not just because Charlie is my friend and comrade (yes, comrade it's a thing that, you know, activists have, when they, like... See M ore 8 hours ago Like 2 people Charleigh Blue "Oh, and lastly, please don't talk to me about how I'm doing all this to get money or fame or gain capital or to be the voice of a generation. I'm a fucking good writer and I could have made a career in fluffy cultural crit if I liked- instead I have risked my reputation, my health and my personal safety time and time and time again to defend you all, against all professional advice I was receiving, I've sacrificed a huge fucking amount for you lot, not just because you're my friends, but because I believe what you're doing is fundamentally just, and right, and true" WTF?? Seriously. I cant believe that these are the thoughts that ran through your head during this argument. I find it so utterly patronising and insulting. The only things that you have sacrificed is the trust of your apparent friends. I think you arent given enough credit for how much you you realise the importance of your words, tone and arguments. I think you are very aware that you are considered "the voice of a generation" and I think you are also very aware that some of your professional success lately has been based on this and I also think that you want to take advantage of this whilst you can. After your plea for help about a subject to write about last week cos you were at such a loss (????) Was it writers block that lead to this shameless article?? 8 hours ago Like 4 people Jordan Savage I also disagree with your contention that you are a "fucking good writer", for which, see above. 8 hours ago Like 1 person Jimmy Cripps a FAR more helpful and insightful article, on the DAILY MAIL website. 8 hours ago Like 2 people Jimmy Cripps it wont let me put the link up, but venture into it and look for "Prison is for killers, rapists, bankers - not stupid students'. 8 hours ago Like 1 person Jordan Savage http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article2015520/David-Gilmours-son-jailed-Prison-killers-rapists-stupidstudents.html voila 7 hours ago Like 3 people Jimmy Cripps Cheers. 7 hours ago Like Jordan Savage nw 7 hours ago Like Sofie Buckland Lisa - "'Journalism' with blind faith and a refusal to analyse anything because of solidarity with any organisation, is not journalism at all. It is propaganda" ...might well be true (though this isn't an 'organisation' or 'analysis' question), but a journalist who uses this defense when they're called out on tone, choice of subject or anything else also has to understand why activists might wish to restrict their access to meetings/actions. 2 people 7 hours ago Like Jordan Savage Lisa - Totally baffled as to how you can argue that Laurie is being uncritical, when all she does is criticise one kid. And she ain't about criticism either. Burn the pedestal, let the human stand, says I. 7 hours ago Like Lucy Kitching Got to jump in and reiterate that Charlie was a prominent member of our occupation in Cambridge, taking part in meetings, leafleting, marching, dancing, singing...all of it (despite any personal problems he may have been dealing with, none of which I knew about because it was none of my BUSINESS!)!! Solidarity Charlie, keep fighting the good fight brother! 7 hours ago Like 7 people Rob Johnston Oh dear . Just because Laurie Penny pointed out that while he didn't deserve 16 months Gilmour still behaved like an arse she gets loads of abuse . Laurie would have done better to ignore this thread completely . There are times I worry about the intolerence of some on the left to those who disagree with them sometimes . Sorry , but I think some of you have gone way over the top :-( 7 hours ago Like 2 people Jordan Savage It'd be a whole different scenario Rob if Laurie had mounted a political argument, and not just got the "mean and
moralistic" knife out on our comrade. Our repsonses ARE political, and about the nature of collectivism. Penny's article wasn't. 7 hours ago Like 3 people Rob Johnston Jordan , she apologised about twenty posts ago . Look she said she thought the sentence was wrong , didn't she ? So her article was supportive of Charlie Gilmour even though she may have expressed some mild critiscism of his actions ;-). I think some of you are being a bit over sensitive , if you don't mind me saying so . 1 person 7 hours ago Like Carl Robert Packman Forgive me, but what offended me was that "16-months" and "sixteen months" written in the same article and the same paragraph - got past editorial. Further than that, Jacob's line "Whatever you may think of Charlie, he needs our support n... S ee M ore 2 people 7 hours ago Like Halim Boudjeltia Rob it's in the nature of a ideologically inbred group, when their beliefs are so similar that they're forced to squabble over insignificances to define themselves. 2 people 7 hours ago Like Sofie Buckland This thread appears to have been infested with liberal & smug. I'm taking bets on someone mentioning a) John Stuart Mill or b) Voltaire in the next 2 hours. Hit me up on messaging to get in on the sweepstake. 6 hours ago Like 4 people Carl Robert Packman Laurie mentioned earlier that she writes in spite of fears for her personal safety. Well, was it not John Stuart Mill who said "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " 2 people 6 hours ago Like Sofie Buckland AICMFP. Go on Halim/Rob, give us the full set. 6 hours ago Like Carl Robert Packman ;) I'm not really paying five pounds 6 hours ago Like Rob Johnston Sorry , Sofie , I'm a bit unenlightened on the Enlightenenment . 6 hours ago Like Halim Boudjeltia Regarding your seedy gambling cabal: "A man who squanders away his wealth by gambling and becomes unable to pay debts and thus causes his family to suffer.He is punishable for his violation of his (distinct and assignable) duty to his family to support them, but not for his gambling habit. (If good intentions were behind his loss - bad investments, say - he would still be punishable." John Stuart Mill. Philosopher, Economist, Civil Servant, Smug Liberal. 6 hours ago Like Halim Boudjeltia Sartre should've been C, maybe 10/1? 6 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge THink a link to this thread quite useful. Staggering lack of self awareness. SUlky children. 6 hours ago Like 1 person Sofie Buckland Lisa, any substantive response to the problem of journalistic principle v. activist engagement? Or just insults? 6 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge A substantive response to what? You were upset because she included a fairly accurate description of Charlie Gilmour, in an article which lays out the case against political policing quite well? No. I don't need a substantive response to th... See M ore 5 hours ago Like Sofie Buckland Yeah, you're not very interested in the politics here, are you? Jordan and I both responded to your first comment above, but feel free to ignore and be a patronising liberal all over our debate 5 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge Sofie- I don't wish to burst your bubble- but some snotty nosed kids getting upset because something uncritical of their friend appeared in the press, is not politics. NOt in the least. However, the assumption that it is rather a problem. CHarlie Gilmour behaved like a prick, and as a result tarred opposition to a very serious economic agenda as it was focused on him. Just another snot nosed student happy to exploit a situation that will never affect him, as an excuse to behave like a prat. NOt only was Lauries piece good, her criticism of Charlie moved her away from being seen as uncritical of the ridiculous social network that the so called 'movement'is-it is good news for everyone. Don't confuse my lack of interest in the squabbling of brats, for disinterest in politics. The two are very different. And by the way- compared to some of the shit I have seen from the snot nosed brats at the heart of this social whirl, I think it treaded lightly. 5 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge And in fact, given som eof the other things that happened that night, Laurie was fairly light on Charlie Gilmour. And as for the 'liberal' sensitivities some on this thread accuse me oflearn what words and labels mean before you use them. This pseudo intellectual masking of social squabbling is embarrassing. And does more harm to you than the article it is attached to. 5 hours ago Like
Sofie Buckland If you genuinely can't see the politics involved in the question of when journalistic identity clashes with activist identity, or the difference between criticising Charlie's behaviour on a demo and using privileged insider knowledge to assassinate his character based on unrelated events, you're either stupid or wilfully obtuse. This is important to us - it's important not because Charlie's a friend (I don't know him, sure lots of others don't) but because it's about how we interact with and accept (or don't) journalists inside our movement. You can characterise that however you like but I doubt we'll stop raising it. 5 hours ago Like 1 person Lisa Maria Idge I think that this situation and thread highlight a very serious problem that has been brewing for a while. How the so called 'movement' against an economic agenda which is crucifying people across the country, has been hijacked by an elite ... S ee M ore 5 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge And there wasn;t just Laurie there that night. Other people saw him behave like a twat- even if the tightness of social group prevents them challenging him 5 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge And Sofie- how is it 'your' movement? Please illuminate me. Because is a question which has been puzzling me for months. Watching anti-cuts groups, groups acting against the cuts, direct actions, and protests all become part of a 'movement' largely populated by those insulated from the effect- is a great puzzle that desperately needs solving. 5 hours ago Like Michael Sayeau "righteous indignation cos your friend was insulted" - I don't think that has much or anything to do with what many of us are saying on here. I've never met the man, Sofie admits that she doesn't know him either, etc - there's something el... See M ore 5 hours ago Like 1 person Lisa Maria Idge See the above. It isn't 'your' movement- and if what you need for journalists in your movement to overlook the actions of people- you are not looking for journalists. And the question still remains- when did a social network of elite students become the 'movement' for opposition to cuts that affect the entire country? 5 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge I have an idea- you could follow the US and UK line of only 'embedding' journalists who print what you agree with. THose who insist on criticising can be cast adrift. That's radical that/ 4 hours ago Like Jacob Bard-Rosenberg Journalists can, in general, do what they like. And they will. Most will transmit ideology in its purest form. On this, I imagine we are agreed. And, insofar as we live in a world in which almost all communication takes this form, that is fine. The problems come when the reportage of bourgeois ideology claims to be radical - that is that it's reflexively dishonest. No-one is saying that Laurie shouldn't write nonsense that amounts to bitchy attacks and gossip columns - we are saying that she shouldn't do that and at the same time pretend that such pronouncements have anything to do with radical politics. 4 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge When I read the article, I thought she did a good job of contextualising that her objection was not arising from defence of his actions. Something sorely lacking elsewhere from people 'within' this circle(although gross mischaracterisation... See M ore 4 hours ago Like 1 person Lisa Maria Idge And if you think some spoiled little rich boy, hijacking this protest to have a good, behaving like an arse, bringing this mch attention fro his poor behaviour, and then expecting to be treated uncritically because he can adopt the mantle of 'the movement' is a burgeois ideology, then I am fucked. Cos I think that is the juvenile, harmful, spoilt behaviour of cosseted adolescent. 4 hours ago Like Michael Sayeau Jesus. It's pretty simple. Journalists choose where to focus their word-counts. CG being a "massive prat" is hardly the most important use of her column. That is the point. If you can't imagine any other useful things that LP could have said on this or any other matter, yes, you are fucked. 4 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge Sorry- hardly the most important use of her column? THe prob is a phrase or the fact that she described him? LP could have said many things, but she didn't. Arguing that criticism of a spoiled twat whose behaviour has done a lot of damage is at the route of the ridiculous shite spouted in this thread, is clearly ridiculous. And indicative of much bigger problems. 'Your' movement. Grow up. 4 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge JOurnalists for 'the movement' should submit their list of proposed phrases to who? 4 hours ago Like Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk I dunno, it's hard to argue against you, Lisa, because, well, *NO OFFENSE* you seem pretty dim. I'd just like to add that I don't know Charlie Gilmour and, if many of his friends are anything to go by, I likely wouldn't give him the time of day. That has fuck all to do with anything.
4 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge I would reciprocate, but am not sure 'dim' really sums it up. THe predictability of your response, fairly typical of the problem I describe. Thanks for illustrating :-D 4 hours ago Like Halim Boudjeltia But Lisa's column didn't comprise of ad homs, they were there to add context to her overall point that he didn't deserve such a harsh sentence, which re-enforces her view because it's not coming from a chummy place. The only thing you seem ... S ee M ore 4 hours ago Like 2 people Lisa Maria Idge Lol at Dim though. NOt really the standard response is it...haha Yeah, you disagree with me so you are thick. How dare you accuse us of elitism!hahahahah Staggering lack of self awareness. Absolutely staggering. 4 hours ago Like Halim Boudjeltia Laurie's column* 4 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge Is 'it's hard to argue against you because you are dim' better or worse than Laurie calling a prat a prat? 4 hours ago Like Halim Boudjeltia wannabe anarchists don't care for dim people, but they like prats. They can argue with prats, because prats have the faculties to engage in discussion, but dim people... you can't argue with them. xxx 4 hours ago Like Michael Sayeau "Is 'it's hard to argue against you because you are dim' better or worse than Laurie calling a prat a prat?" ... Or you calling the people that you are arguing with her, in nearly every single comment, childish? 4 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge Micheal- you are making yourself look sillier. Really. I didn't make the point that calling a spade a spade was wrong. Please do tell me where I have shown that I am clearly dim. And while you are at it, I would like to know when 'the movem... See M ore 4 hours ago Like Donnacha Kirk I would like to reiterate what Michael said: "Journalists choose where to focus their word counts". Can we drop the idea that they are passive sufferers of a sort of truth-diarrhoea. Another facet that is in danger of being overlooked: I've b... See M ore 3 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge Donache- I think the lin between comment/journalism- the distinction between anthropologist or journalist is important. Agreed. But I dont think that is what Laurie did- not at all. 3 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge Not in this case. 3 hours ago Like Michael Sayeau "Please do tell me where I have shown that I am clearly dim." Really? I think you have a massive misunderstanding of how journalism works, and your failure to understand why LP wasting her time on "I was there..." tabloidishness suggests t... S ee M ore 3 hours ago Like Halim Boudjeltia Probably Lisa, I don't think it's just elitism but also protectionism, looking after one's own no matter what and the delusional over-emphasis on how an artcile can harm a "movement". There was an article on the Daily Mail by Liz Jones decrying Gilmour's prosecution and most of the comments were against her, luckily the rigidly Right Wing Daily Mail didn't create a post called 'Attacking Liz Jones For Our Readers' and calling for her to edit her article. 3 hours ago Like 1 person Lisa Maria Idge I didn't show that.Which branch of journalism demands that you are uncritical of individuals because they are part of a 'movement/party/government'- interested to know. And when did the 'movement' become the property of a bunch of elite students- and why oh why don't you ever learn that chucking the accusation of being thick as a response to accusations of this kind, not really a good idea. 3 hours ago Like Lisa Maria Idge I once did this you know. A crap writer uploaded an article which described me as thick, cos her, a Labour politico, and a blogger didnt like having the 'labour are here to save us' line challenged. She wrote a piece of baseless spiteful shit calling me thick. I went apeshit. I learned. Realised that actually discussion of the problem was a bit more constructive. Which appears to have happened her. Unfortunately discussion here didn't go your way. I realised that putting myself out there meant I should warrante criticism. The fact that the criticism was absurd, has been quite useful since. 3 hours ago Like Halim Boudjeltia Michael - by all means they should get involved, it's good to have intelligent voices added to the mix of discussion and activism, and it proves that our generation aren't as apathetic as the establishment thought it was. However, there is a difference between getting involved in a cause, which transcends class and background and whittling it down to a "movement" which rages against anything negative said by someone part of its clique.
3 hours ago Like 1 person Rob Johnston "For a journalist in this position to react to measured criticism of an article's content, focus and tone with a "I'm putting my own opinion out there based on what I know and what I saw." is simply not sufficient. " Call me dim ,and I'm ... See M ore about an hour ago Like Rob Johnston Sorry , hysterical is a bit strong , unfair maybe . about an hour ago Like Sofie Buckland Shorter Lisa: I don't know any of you but because you're linked to UCL I'm going to say you're all privileged "snotty" kids. Sure, we can all list our relative privileges at the end of all our posts, but get a fucking clue - you have no idea about any of the struggles any of us are engaged in, our politics or our lives. I could finish this post with how I'm a mature student, a low-waged worker, I live below the poverty line, I have caring responsibilities whatever. We all have intersections of privilege and struggle. To decide we're all 'snot-nosed' 'elitist' wankers because you disagree with our politics is the language of the fucking Daily Mail. Grow up. 18 minutes ago Like Lisa Maria Idge It is not whether you attend UCL that makes you snotty kids. And we all have our privileges- I have the privilege of people around me, time, and lots other things. The question is how it is used. TO react hysterically to criticism of a man whose behaviour had consequences for peopel who he wont meet- to describe a journalist describing an encounter, in an article condemning his sentence- then thath is a problem. Because it is very much the squabbling of a social network, whether or not you attend UCL. 6 minutes ago Like
Write a comment...
Facebook © 2011 English (US)
About Advertising Create a Page Developers Careers Privacy Terms Help Andrew Ian Dodge
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.