defend charlie gilmour from laurie penny cc

Home Profile

Create an Ad

Friends' Photos

Tagged:Erin DeMuynck

2 Likes

Tagged:Erin DeMuynck

1 Like · 1 Comment

Sponsored

Wild Hollyoaks Girls!free-screensaver.co.uk

Get this FreeScreensaver, containingcute, famous and wildHollyoaks crew girls in HD!

Wordpress Blog Setupprowpinstall.com

Choose from over 200Premium Wordpressthemes and we will installand setup your blog.Install, setup, plugins andmore.

I Love Wordpress

Wanted! All lovers ofWordPress software,websites and plugins allover the world... LIKEbelow and join the fun.

· 992 people like this.

Amanda's Online Lingerie and...

Small business

· 193 people like this.

Write a Note

by Jacob Bard-Rosenberg on Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 3:05am

Defending Charlie Gilmour from Laurie Penny

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-gilmour-

months-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.

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.

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.

Like · Comment · Share

Guy Aitchison and 76 others like this.

Eleanor Haskins-Griffiths �"From time to time, the idea of a worldwhere you can be locked up for being a massive prat is appealing" ??

Yesterday at 3:40am · Like ·

Gabriel Balfe Sorry Jacob, but this seems ridiculous. From otheraccounts besides Laurie's I've heard similar things to how he actedwhen he came down to the occ. I've never met the guy and couldn'tcare less really, but she is nonetheless arguing against thesentencing, 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, Iwould hardly characterise the piece as "throwing him to the lions".

All in all, this note seems just spiteful. Why single her out? Why notthe 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 theirtime to fucking over other lefties, maybe because they're in the MSMgame, or because their views may not be as coherent or as anti-sentimental as theirs. Is your aim to just try and win over your bogstandard LP-liking liberals? Is it to make other radical lefties feel goodabout not participating in the MSM spectacle? Or do you think -unlikely I know - that you can convince rightwing sceptics of LP thatbecause radical lefties are sceptical of LP as well they should comeover? I'm as sceptical of the MSM game as anyone else, but therecould be a lot more valuable time taken up messing up the idiots whoplay it from the right.

I don't mean this in anyway to preclude my respect for you as anactivist (and a blogger), but this really seems silly.


Richard Brodie Gabriel, perhaps you couldn't care less, but hereare some people who might: charlie; charlie's close friends; charlie'sfamily; people you don't know who are facing prison sentences andconsequent press attention; people you do know whoar...See More


Rona Lorimer �Gabriel, no, she isn't, Laurie is reinforcing theseviews in my opinion-- I am supportive of lots of the things Lauriewrites, 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

Browse Notes

Tagged

Subscribe

Report

Account

Jacob's Notes

Notes About Jacob

Friends' Notes

Pages' Notes

My Notes

My Drafts

Notes About Me

Jump to Friend or Page

Jacob Bard-Rosenberg's Notes

Like

Like

1 person

6 people

18 people

4

Search

rather than Jacob's. Sorry Laurie, you don't have my support on thisone.


Laurie Penny It's not about 'good protester, bad protester' Jacob-the point is that Charlie isn't a protester at all. He's a messed up kidwho has been punished too harshly. In fact, I'm anxious to makethat point clearer, and I'm doing a second draft because on readingback, I thought it was a bit harsh.


Laurie Penny And secondly- please stop with this 'voice of ageneration' bullshit. You know perfectly well that I've never calledmyself that and I think it's an unhelpful idea.


Richard Brodie Laurie - Charlie is/was a protesters. Here's thestatement from Cambridge Defend Education, the protest groupCharlie was a part of in November-December:http://www.defendeducation�.co.uk/gilmour-gets-sixtee �n-mulcaire-gets-six


Laurie Penny I'm sorry Jacob, but if you're going to talk aboutwriting irrelevant character assasinations based on personalinteractions to up your own blog hits, I don't think it's my blog youneed to be looking at.


Rona Lorimer My main objection to your article, Laurie, is that youopenly disparage Charlie in the first half and it is only after thisrather substantial character assault that you begin to criticise thetabloid press and the legal system. Sort of. I mean, considering thatyou call Charlie a 'prize dickhead', and also concede that there aretimes when 'the idea of a world where you can be locked up forbeing a massive prat is appealing', your critique seems a bit shallow.

Do you not see that your lack of solidarity at a time like thisreinforces the views you claim you want to counteract? There's aterm for this which I can't remember -- occupasium? occupatium?

(Danny Hayward, help me?) Anyway, it's the idea of saying whatyou then go on to not say. (Adam does it in the garden of Eden 'ifthis were toil, yet with thee were sweet'). Claiming not to say is notenough -- 'I'm not a racist, but....'.

You are used to character-based attacks, surely you know by nowthat they are spiteful and unhelpful.


Owain Shave I am perfectly happy with Gilmour going to jail. I caremore about whether or not he gets sent down from Girton, but it's astart.


Rona Lorimer �"the point is that Charlie isn't a protester at all. He'sa messed up kid who has been punished too harshly"

"I could tell that he and some of his Cambridge friends had turned upto party, not to protest."

"Some posh tosser who didn't represent the movement was giving usall a bad name. Now he's been sent down on their behalf, along withmany genuine protesters,"

" It's not about throwing a rubbish bin at a Roller, it's about throwinga rubbish bin at a convoy containing the heir to the throne."

-- Charlie's sentencing IS political, and is part of a wider attack onprotesting, as the final quote here suggests.


Laurie Penny Of course it's political Rona, and I've said so. Butthere's a difference between solidarity and saying things that youknow aren't true to maintain the image of a cause. As a movementwe need to be truthful and honest as well as robust. I take on boardyour point that personal attacks hurt, and I will be tonight the piecedown, but I'm not prepared simply to say 'charlie is one of us so weprotect him' and erase the real harm he has caused the movement.It smacks of censorship and is unhelpful.


Rona Lorimer �--no, it's not about lying, or saying things that aren'ttrue. It's about not publishing an article days after Charlie'ssentencing which insults him in such a petty way. It's aboutsensitivity to Charlie, his friends and family; it's about not cashing inon a moment to play out your personal feud. And if you are awareof the label you have been given ( 'voice of a generation' ) youought to consider this before making such an attack. I don't want tocensor you at all Laurie. But in contrast to the mass of protestersyou speak of, I didn't ask you to speak for me and I'm happy forsomeone like Charlie to represent me.


Sofie Buckland No Laurie, what's unhelpful is suggesting the loftyideals of journalistic truth require you to personally attack someonewho has just been sent to prison, just because you've met them andhave some nice inside story on their character flaw...See More


Jacob Bard-Rosenberg Laurie, this has nothing to do with me; itis about what /you/ have done, and /your/ piece. You ought to havean understanding that the New Statesman is not a good place tohave discussions about the most minor internal politics of themove...See More

Yesterday at 12:04pm · Like ·

Greg Brown �Laurie, *please* tell me how littering an article with childish slurs("dickhead", "tosser", "epic dickwaddery", so on so forth) furthers either your

3 people

3 people

3 people

5 people

1 person

2 people

1 person

1 person

1 person

13 people

12 people

10 people

own political agenda or helps to serve the truth about the political sentencingagainst Charlie in any way. Once again your writing has led so many people toquestion your ethics and methodology rather than discuss the real issues athand. This is very serious. And before we go there, this has absolutely nothingto do with you as a person or as a woman writer, so please don't wheel out the"personal attack" spiel.


Laurie Penny I agree that the piece was overly spiteful, and assoon as I make it to a proper PC with internet access I'll be sendingthe 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 otherstuff that happened that night- FAR worse things than a littlealtercation that I just thought was quite funny at the time- that Ihaven't spoken about and won't be putting in the public domain,precisely because I care about Charlie's family. Even though thethings I saw fucking disgusted me and demeaned all of us, IMHO.

There is a fine line between solidarity and untruthfulness. And I amnot producing missives from the party, I'm putting my own opinionout there based on what I know and what I saw. My opinion is thatCharlie is a stupid prat with a lot of problems who let himself and alot of others down, but that he doesn't deserve to go to prison, thathis sentencing is political. That's what I've said in the piece and it'swhat I'll continue to say.


Laurie Penny Essentially, on rereading, the piece isn't inaccurate,it's just unkind- and there's no reason to be unkind.


Michael Chessum It was definitely an error to put this stuff up onNS. The line the article takes isn't totally horrific from an objectivepoint of view: i.e. the narrative that "he's an idiot but he doesn'tdeserve 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 tobe on Charlie's side, at least to the extent that they should not bemaking negative 'insider' knowledge public - especially at such asensitive time. I also think it's unfair to say that Charlie wasn't aprotester. Quite a lot our movement is populated by people whoweren't 'serious' protesters - they weren't protesting thegovernment'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 articleare things that you would only have knowledge of by being insidethe UCL occupation: putting them in the public domain is a case ofopportunistic eavesdropping.

In other words, the central antagonism is between being a columnistof-and-for the movement, and being a mainstream journo. Thisepisode 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.


Sofie Buckland �"But Sofie, you know as well as I do" - I'm notinterested in continuing this debate, I've said my piece. But I justwant to disown this. I'm not happy being made an insider toanything, actually.


Greg Brown �Laurie, I'm not sure what happened that night whichwas so horrific so I'll have to accept whatever point you think you'remaking. But I simply don't see how it's relevant to the events on the9th which Charlie has been convicted for. The man is suffering apolitical sentence for reckless protesting, and I can't see how tyingany other (unrelated!) actions of his on an earlier date to the issuehelps anyone. For me it is tantamount to defamation.


Danny Hayward �(Rona Lorimer: I think the closest rhetorical figureis proslepsis, where the author gives full details of acts which s/hethen claims to pass over. I had to look that up.) But, BTW, or by theby, there is an important question about the relationship of style toargument here. The argument boiled down to its gelatinoussubstrate is that CG's character is patently and absolutely irrelevantto his treatment by the fine old men of the British judiciary, doingtheir guardian-of-the-moral-char�acter-of-the-nation schtick betweenmeals at the Ivy. We all agree about this: if we didn't we would bethe direct advocates of a legal system wielded as an instrument ofconvenience by the ruling class. I mean that we would effectively befascists. But to flesh out the argument with a scroll of biliousreminisce about CG's character ('opinion'), only then to deny itsrelevance to the issue at hand, and *especially within the currentmedia climate of truly fascistic ad hominem vindictiveness*, is toundermine the argument by the whole focus and colouration of itspresentation. This gives a good *reason* not to dwell fulsomely ondetails 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 toundermine one another by letting our literary jeu d'esprits eclipse ourcase against what Laurie rightly recognises as political misuse of thelegal system.

It's important to have these arguments; they don't have to beuncivil.


Jon Moses I think it's right to question whether the NS is the bestforum for anecdotes about Charlie, at the same time I'm notconvinced facebook notes is the best forum to raise these issueseither. We can all do better than this in the way we treat eachother.


2 people

1 person

1 person

5 people

3 people

3 people

7 people

8 people

Michael Chessum �^Yes^


Sofie Buckland The article is public, the robust (but not, as Dannysays, uncivil) political debate on it should be too.


Jacob Bard-Rosenberg �Jon Moses, what would be better - Ihave used fb here because I don't think this is great material to puton a blog - I am making entirely practical demands for somethingreflecting on the movement, not something that benefits from a bigpublic debacle.


Laurie Penny I've taken your comments into account and produceda new draft which, I feel, is far less about the ad-hominems - whilstpreserving the original sense of 'he's a dickhead but he didn'tdeserve it'. I hope that's alright. I'll apologise to his mum on Twittertoo.


Samuel Gaus Now let's all be friends!


Sofie Buckland Point: missed.


Jacob Bard-Rosenberg Sam - this has nothing to do withfriendship. As people who have commented here know, friends ofmine come in for far worse criticism.


Samuel Gaus Success!


Laurie Penny No Sofie, I haven't missed the point, I just don'tagree with you. One of those things is not like the other.


Sofie Buckland �"I hope that's alright" (above) is not equal to "Iactually disagree with you all, am disregarding your critique andsuperficially changing some of the 'mean' bits to look like I'veresponded to criticism". Sounded like you'd missed the point. If it's adisagreement, then fine, but it's not now 'alright'.


Halim Boudjeltia I don't understand everyone problem with thearticle, I read it twice and feel that it works on its own terms. Eitheryou agree with Laurie Penny's overall point and feel that she wastoo harsh (which is fine) or you fundamentally disagree with whatshe's saying in which case there is no point in a re-draft.

Reading through these comments it seems that you just want tosuppress a view that might hinder "solidity" amongst the studentactivists, but according to Laurie's piece she doesn't regard CharlieGilmore as an activist (which puts the personal attacks intoperspective) and most importantly I don't think she wallows in themfor too long, she qualifies these with a well-reasoned argumentagainst his long incarceration.

And lastly just because something can be used against your groupdoesn't mean it shouldn't be divulged, so we should censor ourselvesso that a third=party can't use it as ammunition? Surely it's best tolead by example and draw a distinction between peaceful activistsand the very small minority of wannabe anarchists. Truth shouldtranscend ideology and politics, you should be able to write whatyou want without the fear of straying from the party line, if youdon't agree then go and work for News Corp.


Laurie Penny I don't disagree with you all though. I think the piecewas too harsh, and have changed it accordingly- that part of thecriticism, 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, notpro-movement propaganda, sorry.


Greg Brown Halim, you're missing the point now too. Whether ornot Laurie likes Charlie as a person has *absolutely fuck all* to dowith his sentencing, and does not present her (or anyone) with theopportunity to tell the world how much of a tit she thinks he is. Thatis not journalism!


Omar Bongo We probably should be civil when talking about theseissues but right now I really don't feel like being after I feel Lauriehas shamed herself, the left and Charlie with her fucking idioticarticle. I spend time defending Laurie, but the hypocrisy of someonewho whines on facebook about an army of malicious trolls waiting totear her down, then only a couple of days later lurches at thechance to gain some journalistic capital and trolls someonepersecuted and vulnerable is disgusting. There's the sense you'rebeing horribly two faced as an individual who in private praises andasks after Charlie incessantly, but in public will so gladly benefit fromhis lynching - there's also the fact it's just so fucking obvious thatALL the character assassinations of Charlie all over the press areonly EVER written in order to damn the cause you purportedly fightfor. 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 thinkso) it's shocking you're so unable to take some responsibility andgrow up. Your article is of the same moral standard as the peoplewho make personal attacks on you in order to further their politicalagendas. In fact, it's even worse because you're trading off bothyour own political agenda and moral integrity in order to tell some

1 person

3 people

7 people

3 people

2 people

3 people

2 people

3 people

1 person

4 people

1 person

1 person

6 people

shit anecdote. It's not truth in any meaningful or important sense ofthe word, it's fucking gossip. It would have easy to write a goodarticle 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 tabloidwank showing off how you party in London in occupations. To tryand justify what you've done as you're noble quest for truth telling isobscene. You might just as well hacked his phone if you're going tocontinue in that vain. Unless you take that article down or apologizefor it, you're a troll, just as bad as Paul Staines, Andy Coulson orany News Corporation journalist. I intended to send you a privatemessage after I read your tweets, and then again when I saw yourarticle, but after seeing this whole discussion with you trying tojustify yourself - here is just as good a place as any. It seems all ofour standards are quickly sinking at the moment, why stop. I amvery pro-Jacob's "practical demands for something reflecting on themovement". This whole thing is disgusting and depressing.


Jacob Bard-Rosenberg what he said.


Greg Brown HEATHCOTE YES, been slowly seething all daydeciding what to say to Laurie but you have it all.


Greg Brown BOOM


Greg Brown love scb


Halim Boudjeltia Greg, it seems that ANY disagreement with thisembittered chorus is "missing the point". The concept of journalismisn't a one-dimensional, it's multi-faceted and fluid. There is adifference between someone not sharing your opinion anddiv...See More


Richard Drayton Laurie, I think you understand that a seriousmistake 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 columnand on your twitter feed you now carry very heavyresponsibili...See More


Sofie Buckland Just opened the Sunday Times to see a page 3splash about Charlie Gilmour's complex and painful family history. Butif 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 discussionor you can accuse us all of undemocratically attempting to shutsomeone up just by disagreeing. On 'trivial' see Richard's commentsabove.


Laurie Penny I'm sorry you're upset, Heathcote. But if you'll look, Ihave accepted that the attack part of the article was horribly badform,and that - as you and Rona said- I have no right to complainabout nasty attacks on me by people on the left if I'm just going todo the same to someone else who can't defend himself. I've changedthe piece and apologised in public and to Polly in private. There's notmuch more I can do. Again, I apologise.

At the end of the day, though, Charlie behaved like a prize idiot, andI'm not going to retract that sentiment, because it's true, and I'm notgoing to be bullied into doing so. In fact, I think that being honestabout that, whilst withholding the worst bits, helps the movementrather than harms it.

I understand that you all think I'm some sort of heartless bitch nowbut I do actually care about Charlie, about Polly, and about you, andthat's why I've held stuff back and changed and apologised for theunecessary ad-hominem. I do take criticism on board, but I'm notgoing to be coralled into changing the whole line or taking the piecedown. If you'll notice, the whole argument of the article is thatCharlie didn't deserve to go to jail, and that the sentencing waspolitical, and that it's not a crime to be young and stupid.

Over the next few years, as more direct action is needed, there aregoing to be a lot of things I'm going to have to risk my reputationdefending, and I'll do so gladly. And not calling out idiocy when I seeit 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 toget 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 fluffycultural crit if I liked- instead I have risked my reputation, my healthand my personal safety time and time and time again to defend youall, against all professional advice I was receiving, I've sacrificed ahuge fucking amount for you lot, not just because you're my friends,but because I believe what you're doing is fundamentally just, andright, and true.


Sofie Buckland �"I understand that you all think I'm some sort ofheartless bitch now". No, we just think you're wrong. It's notpersonal. That's not 'bullying' or 'coralling' you - you are, as ever, likeeveryone, free to ignore any criticism you receive or reply indefense. Characterising it in these terms veers a little close to anattempt to shut it down.


Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk �"I'm in the business of journalism, notpro-movement propaganda, sorry." - Laurie Penny. It has troubledme since I first encountered Laurie Penny that this was a factignored by her friends in 'the movement'. She sells stories - not news

25 people

5 people

5 people

1 person

2 people

2 people

3 people

1 person

4 people

1 person

...See More


Richard Drayton �@Laurie I don't think you are at all heartless, orglory or money seeking. I think you are, if you pardon me sayingthis, a 20 something year old person who is still quite young and stillonly gradually becoming aware of her public role. What this thread isabout, I think, is all the stakeholders in the public LP reminding youof 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 withsomething.


Laurie Penny Sofie you make it sound like all I wrote was apersonal attack. The whole point of the piece was to make it clearthat the sentencing was harsh, political and unfair, howevertwattishly Charlie acted. And that's the impact it's had, not 'feedinginto the right wing narrative'. I'm not ever going to make a uselessad hominem attack again, I shall serve as I'd like to be served, butreally, be fair.


Greg Brown Halim - since when were personal attacks ever a goodfacet of journalism? You're /still/ missing the point. Journalism is notmulti-faceted and fluid to the extent that it gives any writer freereign to say whatever they like without any re...See More


Sofie Buckland I can't find where I said all you wrote was apersonal attack, or implied it. For me this isn't about 'never adhominem'. It's what Greg said ̂ ^


Gabriel Balfe Okay, second look at this. My first point was writtenat the end of a very drunken night, so apologies for not reallygetting on what seems to be the main point, which seems to be - ifI'm not mistaken - the power imbalance of Laurie's position to aircertain personal views, however justified or unjustified as they maybe in private, over a persecuted man, which I would agree with.

Halim: "Surely it's best to lead by example and draw a distinctionbetween peaceful activists and the very small minority of wannabeanarchists."

This is abhorrent.

Halim: "Truth should transcend ideology and politics, you should beable to write what you want without the fear of straying from theparty 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 ablogpiece with the noble language of intrepid journalism is stupid.This isn't about censoring what isn't good for the movement, but thesimple morality of using a national platform to air grievances againstsomeone in no equivalent position.

The whole thing has obviously gotten very personal, so withoutgoing into this any further I'll simply say I hope everything is okaywith you Heathcote, with Charlie and the rest of the family x


Halim Boudjeltia Sofie, my problem wasn't with you guysdisagreeing but your angry calls for Laurie to shut down her articleand apologize. The Right Wing press doesn't need Laurie's article toqualify their biased views, oh yes let's combat bias with more...See More


Samuel Gaus Just thought I'd comment again to let everyoneknow I'm still reading. Going to work now. My boss texted me lastnight that I need smarter trousers. The night before! What awanker.


Michael Sayeau �"I'm in the business of journalism, not pro-movement propaganda, sorry." See, there's a statement that flipsover as the occassion warrants.


Sofie Buckland Halim, it's a bit ludicrous to suggest disagreement isok but suggestions on how someone might make amends if theyaccept said criticisms are out of order. As for clear and concise, seeoriginal post.


Halim Boudjeltia Gabriel, your threshold for what is abhorrantmust be very low.

You don't know what Laurie's intention before writing the article, tosay she's "cloaking" suggests malevolence and that is your owninterpretation.

Sofie, what I read were not suggestions, but outright demands. Iagree that the original post was clear and concise, I was referring tothe comments, that's why I said comments. For proof, see myprevious post.


Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk Halim, my point that people should"wake the fuck up" referred - I thought clearly - to my concerns thatone corporate journalist should be provided unfettered accesswithout the consent of some of those whom it affects, while othercorpora...See More


Rona Lorimer �"I've sacrificed a huge fucking amount for you lot, not just

1 person

2 people

2 people

1 person

2 people

1 person

1 person

8 people

4 people

1 person

2 people

3 people

because you're my friends, but because I believe what you're doing isfundamentally just, and right, and true. " If you really believe in this, Laurie,then this is a pointless separation between you and everyone else. If youbelieve in protesting, then it's no sacrifice, is there? no need to attach debt to arelationship where there isn't any.


Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk To clarify: I encourage people to slagLaurie off at will, as she may do in return. I don't wish to censoranyone. What's important is that she is a corporate journalist and,as such, chose to prioritise wealth, esteem and notoriety overfriendship and camaraderie some time ago.


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 theargument straight, it'd not be sexy enough to draw the punters,please th...See More


Halim Boudjeltia Matt I apologize that I hijacked what you said, Ihad a lot of branches of the discussion to address and may havemissed the overall context x


Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk No worries


Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk BTW tho, you just kissed a 'wannabeannarchist'


Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk Shit, does that count as rape, like withthe Palistinian dude in Israel?


Richard Drayton I wish everyone would back off from these adfeminam attacks on LP. She made a serious error and we have takenher to task on this. She admits there is a problem and is thinking it allthrough 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 ajournalist: does she take the road which leads to Polly Toynbee orheaven-forfend Julie Burchill, a kind of Polly Filla of the left whodrifts into company with the right, or does she take the road in whichshe keeps company with Seumas Milne and Gary Younge? It is ourrole to welcome and encourage her on the latter path.


Laurie Penny Rona- I'm not trying to say 'you guys owe me'. I'mtrying to say that all this stuff about me being in it for my career orwhatever is just not true, and it's hurtful.

New Statesman are currently not happy with changing the draft, soI think the best I can do is issue a full apology on my Penny Redblog.I'm still working on getting it changed or removed and will keepyou all updated.


Halim Boudjeltia I don't mind kissing a wannabe anarchist, no airquotes needed either, as I don't know many real anarchists whohave 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 andyour retrospective spiteful corruption of a simple and sincere gestureis amusing, I was trying to be contrite and you shat on it. Go you.


Sofie Buckland �'I don't know many real anarchists who have beento uni and are on facebook' - see a large number ofcommenters/comrades above for an education in this regard


Laurie Penny Matt- I'm sorry, 'corporate journalist'? I'm notcorporate anything, I'm freelance. No contract. Get your facts right.


Deterritorial Support Group lol


Halim Boudjeltia my definition of what a real anarchist is clearlydiffers from yours, this was clear in my earlier post when I referredto the violence in the protests, which matt lifted to make an infantileremark. Stop overlooking key words in my posts to selectivelyreason.

Well Laurie have you got a phone contract, I'm afraid that stillcounts, you're a corporate shill. Seriously though, even if Laurie wason contract, so the fuck what? What's wrong with using corporatemeans to get your message across, record labels, publishing - wouldNoam Chomsky object to his books being sold in Ottakers if it meansthat the general public can read his stuff?

Yesterday at 4:26pm · Like

Guy Aitchison not much to add to the above. very nastycomments about Charlie that should never have been published.Charlie *is* a protester and his sentencing *is* draconian andpolitical (even the right-wing press are calling it harsh) - everythingelse is Daily Mail bullshit.


David Broder Laurie - " I'm not corporate anything, I'm freelance. No

18 people

1 person

9 people

1 person

1 person

3 people

1 person

2 people

1 person

2 people

3 people

3 people

14 people

2 people

contract".... Halim - "What's wrong with using corporate means to get yourmessage across" - nothing, if you exploit those means in order to promote amessage in solidarity with the movement, rather than use your knowledge of themovement to help feed the corporate media's attacks against it. Loads of youngpeople may be dicks or drink lots or whatever - but the only possible reason themedia would be interested in describing CG as such is to discredit andmisrepresent the left. Whatever her intentions Laurie's piece feeds this middle-class liberal disdain for our movement, whether she is on a contract or does itfreelance is hardly the point.


Laurie Penny �'His name was Charlie Gilmour. His name was CharlieGilmour. His name was Charlie Gilmour'-??


Laurie Penny Right, well, the post is now updated as far as I couldpersuade the editor on duty- see what you think. I've taken out thepointless attacks because they were nasty. I'm going to apologiseagain on Twitter. And that's all I can do.


Lev Taylor Sorry, genuinely not trying to be difficult, what werethe changes that were made? Some of the words that peopleobjected to like "prat" and "dickhead" are still there, but the tonedoes seem different. I'm not asking to cast a judgement on it, justfor clarity.


Lev Taylor Sorry, no, mine hadn't refereshed, the difference isclear.


Francis Nicholson Are we all ad homineming LP for ad hominems?If you read the post, then the thread, then the post again, it'spretty clear that LP is being sentenced with the crime of sentencing.


Milo Mariposa Ay que lastima


Greg Brown i want to say that jacob is a cunt but i think that'd be abit too much to throw in right now


Sofie Buckland If Jacob was imprisoned I definitely wouldn't tellanyone he's a cunt, in solidarity


Sofie Buckland Good thing he remains a free man


Greg Brown BREAKING NEWS: Sir Paul Stephenson has resignedover Laurie2gate.


Sofie Buckland He actually resigned over Cuntgate but it's takenhim this long to get through all Glen Mulcaire's notes on it


Greg Brown Just listened to his voicemail, he thinks Laurie shouldtake the article down too.


Polly Samson I've been thinking about Laurie Penny's piece. I wasinitially shocked by the spiteful tone but on reflection I think the mostimportant thing is that people engage with the outrageoussentencing of Charlie, Francis Fernie and all the student protestersto come. I believe they are all to be shoved before the same judge.The fact that Laurie Penny so clearly disliked Charlie made her pointabout the sentencing much stronger and her piece of more interestthan it would've been if she was his best mate. I don't think shethrew any extra tidbits to the machine. Charlie was in a downwardspiral of nihilism and despair at the time of the protests - he hadalready played straight into their hands and as he said to me lastweek: if he hadn't been the prize dickhead they'd have foundsomeone else.


Milo Mariposa La solidaridad con mi hermana


Laurie Penny Thanks Polly. Really appreciate you taking the timeto write this, you must have so much to cope with at the moment.My thoughts with you as I said in messages xx


Laurie Penny By the way, I do know I've been a prize dickheadtoo. Just for the record. I'm sorry everyone. I'll be better than thisin the future.


Jas Mann This thread is hilarious


Will Wearden Wow - where do you begin with this? Perhaps LauriePenny's article is particularly harsh and uncompromising (I candefinitely understand how it could be seen as turning on one's own);however, I am becoming increasingly disturbed by howman...See More

22 hours ago · Like ·

Sofie Buckland Will isn't the thing that's disturbing you just 'lots ofpeople are getting more anticapitalist, in an organised fashion'?


Lisa Maria Idge The job of the 'radical' journalist is to tell the truth as they see

1 person

3 people

1 person

2 people

1 person

5 people

3 people

1 person

1 person

5 people

2 people

1 person

2 people

4 people

2 people

1 person

it. 'Journalism' with blind faith and a refusal to analyse anything because ofsolidarity 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 Ithink Laurie's abilityt to see something uncritically, alongside arguments aboutwhy her feelings about Gilmour not driven byallegiance to the tight socialnetwork that is 'the movement'-possibly made the case stronger to those whosefeelings weren't hurt.


Vik Chechi cool story bro

8 hours ago · Like

Charleigh Blue firstly i'd like to apologise that I may be about toreignite an argument that is obviously drawing to a close but I wasworking and really cant let this one slide.

8 hours ago · Like

Jordan Savage �@Laurie, very, very few things I've ever readfrom "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 More


Charleigh Blue �"Oh, and lastly, please don't talk to me about howI'm doing all this to get money or fame or gain capital or to be thevoice of a generation. I'm a fucking good writer and I could havemade a career in fluffy cultural crit if I liked- instead I have risked myreputation, my health and my personal safety time and time and timeagain to defend you all, against all professional advice I wasreceiving, I've sacrificed a huge fucking amount for you lot, not justbecause you're my friends, but because I believe what you're doingis fundamentally just, and right, and true" WTF?? Seriously. I cantbelieve that these are the thoughts that ran through your headduring this argument. I find it so utterly patronising and insulting.The only things that you have sacrificed is the trust of yourapparent friends. I think you arent given enough credit for howmuch you you realise the importance of your words, tone andarguments. I think you are very aware that you are considered "thevoice of a generation" and I think you are also very aware that someof your professional success lately has been based on this and I alsothink that you want to take advantage of this whilst you can. Afteryour plea for help about a subject to write about last week cos youwere at such a loss (????) Was it writers block that lead to thisshameless article??


Jordan Savage I also disagree with your contention that you are a"fucking good writer", for which, see above.


Jimmy Cripps a FAR more helpful and insightful article, on theDAILY MAIL website.


Jimmy Cripps it wont let me put the link up, but venture into it andlook for "Prison is for killers, rapists, bankers - not stupid students'.


Jordan Savage http://www.dailymail.co.uk�/debate/article-2015520/Da �vid-Gilmours-son-jailed-Pr�ison-killers-rapists-stupi�d-students.html voila


Jimmy Cripps Cheers.

7 hours ago · Like

Jordan Savage nw

7 hours ago · Like

Sofie Buckland Lisa - "'Journalism' with blind faith and a refusal toanalyse anything because of solidarity with any organisation, is notjournalism 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 calledout on tone, choice of subject or anything else also has tounderstand why activists might wish to restrict their access tomeetings/actions.


Jordan Savage Lisa - Totally baffled as to how you can argue thatLaurie is being uncritical, when all she does is criticise one kid. Andshe ain't about criticism either. Burn the pedestal, let the humanstand, says I.

7 hours ago · Like

Lucy Kitching Got to jump in and reiterate that Charlie was aprominent member of our occupation in Cambridge, taking part inmeetings, leafleting, marching, dancing, singing...all of it (despiteany personal problems he may have been dealing with, none ofwhich I knew about because it was none of my BUSINESS!)!!Solidarity Charlie, keep fighting the good fight brother!


Rob Johnston Oh dear . Just because Laurie Penny pointed outthat while he didn't deserve 16 months Gilmour still behaved like anarse she gets loads of abuse . Laurie would have done better toignore this thread completely . There are times I worry about theintolerence of some on the left to those who disagree with themsometimes .Sorry , but I think some of you have gone way over the top :-(


Jordan Savage It'd be a whole different scenario Rob if Laurie hadmounted a political argument, and not just got the "mean and

1 person

2 people

4 people

1 person

2 people

1 person

3 people

2 people

7 people

2 people

moralistic" knife out on our comrade. Our repsonses ARE political,and about the nature of collectivism. Penny's article wasn't.


Rob Johnston Jordan , she apologised about twenty posts ago .Look she said she thought the sentence was wrong , didn't she ? Soher article was supportive of Charlie Gilmour even though she mayhave expressed some mild critiscism of his actions ;-).I think some of you are being a bit over sensitive , if you don't mindme saying so .


Carl Robert Packman Forgive me, but what offended me wasthat "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 oursupport n...See More


Halim Boudjeltia Rob it's in the nature of a ideologically inbredgroup, when their beliefs are so similar that they're forced tosquabble over insignificances to define themselves.


Sofie Buckland This thread appears to have been infested withliberal & smug. I'm taking bets on someone mentioning a) John StuartMill or b) Voltaire in the next 2 hours. Hit me up on messaging to getin on the sweepstake.


Carl Robert Packman Laurie mentioned earlier that she writes inspite of fears for her personal safety. Well, was it not John StuartMill 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 amiserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made andkept so by the exertions of better men than himself. "


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 theEnlightenenment .

6 hours ago · Like

Halim Boudjeltia Regarding your seedy gambling cabal:

"A man who squanders away his wealth by gambling and becomesunable to pay debts and thus causes his family to suffer.He is punishable for his violation of his (distinct andassignable) duty to his family to support them, but not for his gambling habit. (If good intentions were behind his loss - badinvestments, 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. Staggeringlack of self awareness. SUlky children.


Sofie Buckland Lisa, any substantive response to the problem ofjournalistic principle v. activist engagement? Or just insults?

6 hours ago · Like

Lisa Maria Idge A substantive response to what? You were upsetbecause she included a fairly accurate description of Charlie Gilmour,in an article which lays out the case against political policing quitewell? No. I don't need a substantive response to th...See More

5 hours ago · Like

Sofie Buckland Yeah, you're not very interested in the politicshere, are you? Jordan and I both responded to your first commentabove, but feel free to ignore and be a patronising liberal all overour debate

5 hours ago · Like

Lisa Maria Idge Sofie- I don't wish to burst your bubble- but somesnotty nosed kids getting upset because something uncritical of theirfriend appeared in the press, is not politics. NOt in the least.However, the assumption that it is rather a problem. CHarlie Gilmourbehaved like a prick, and as a result tarred opposition to a veryserious economic agenda as it was focused on him. Just anothersnot nosed student happy to exploit a situation that will never affecthim, as an excuse to behave like a prat. NOt only was Lauries piecegood, her criticism of Charlie moved her away from being seen asuncritical of the ridiculous social network that the so called'movement'is-it is good news for everyone. Don't confuse my lack ofinterest in the squabbling of brats, for disinterest in politics. The twoare very different. And by the way- compared to some of the shit Ihave 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 thathappened that night, Laurie was fairly light on Charlie Gilmour. Andas for the 'liberal' sensitivities some on this thread accuse me of-learn what words and labels mean before you use them. This pseudointellectual masking of social squabbling is embarrassing. And doesmore harm to you than the article it is attached to.

5 hours ago · Like

3 people

1 person

2 people

2 people

4 people

2 people

1 person

Sofie Buckland If you genuinely can't see the politics involved inthe question of when journalistic identity clashes with activistidentity, or the difference between criticising Charlie's behaviour ona demo and using privileged insider knowledge to assassinate hischaracter based on unrelated events, you're either stupid or wilfullyobtuse.

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 abouthow we interact with and accept (or don't) journalists inside ourmovement. You can characterise that however you like but I doubtwe'll stop raising it.


Lisa Maria Idge I think that this situation and thread highlight avery serious problem that has been brewing for a while. How the socalled 'movement' against an economic agenda which is crucifyingpeople across the country, has been hijacked by an elite...See More

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 ofsocial group prevents them challenging him

5 hours ago · Like

Lisa Maria Idge And Sofie- how is it 'your' movement? Pleaseilluminate me. Because is a question which has been puzzling me formonths. Watching anti-cuts groups, groups acting against the cuts,direct actions, and protests all become part of a 'movement' largelypopulated by those insulated from the effect- is a great puzzle thatdesperately needs solving.

5 hours ago · Like

Michael Sayeau �"righteous indignation cos your friend wasinsulted" - I don't think that has much or anything to do with whatmany of us are saying on here. I've never met the man, Sofie admitsthat she doesn't know him either, etc - there's somethingel...See More


Lisa Maria Idge See the above. It isn't 'your' movement- and ifwhat you need for journalists in your movement to overlook theactions of people- you are not looking for journalists. And thequestion still remains- when did a social network of elite studentsbecome the 'movement' for opposition to cuts that affect the entirecountry?

5 hours ago · Like

Lisa Maria Idge I have an idea- you could follow the US and UKline 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 theylike. And they will. Most will transmit ideology in its purest form. Onthis, I imagine we are agreed. And, insofar as we live in a world inwhich almost all communication takes this form, that is fine. Theproblems come when the reportage of bourgeois ideology claims tobe radical - that is that it's reflexively dishonest. No-one is sayingthat Laurie shouldn't write nonsense that amounts to bitchy attacksand gossip columns - we are saying that she shouldn't do that and atthe same time pretend that such pronouncements have anything todo with radical politics.

4 hours ago · Like

Lisa Maria Idge When I read the article, I thought she did a goodjob of contextualising that her objection was not arising fromdefence of his actions. Something sorely lacking elsewhere frompeople 'within' this circle(although gross mis-characterisation...See More


Lisa Maria Idge And if you think some spoiled little rich boy,hijacking this protest to have a good, behaving like an arse, bringingthis mch attention fro his poor behaviour, and then expecting to betreated uncritically because he can adopt the mantle of 'themovement' is a burgeois ideology, then I am fucked. Cos I think thatis the juvenile, harmful, spoilt behaviour of cosseted adolescent.

4 hours ago · Like

Michael Sayeau Jesus. It's pretty simple. Journalists choosewhere to focus their word-counts. CG being a "massive prat" ishardly the most important use of her column. That is the point. Ifyou can't imagine any other useful things that LP could have said onthis or any other matter, yes, you are fucked.

4 hours ago · Like

Lisa Maria Idge Sorry- hardly the most important use of hercolumn? THe prob is a phrase or the fact that she described him? LPcould have said many things, but she didn't. Arguing that criticism ofa spoiled twat whose behaviour has done a lot of damage is at theroute of the ridiculous shite spouted in this thread, is clearlyridiculous. And indicative of much bigger problems. 'Your' movement.Grow up.

4 hours ago · Like

Lisa Maria Idge JOurnalists for 'the movement' should submit theirlist of proposed phrases to who?

4 hours ago · Like

Matt Sporadisk Hæstkuk I dunno, it's hard to argue againstyou, Lisa, because, well, *NO OFFENSE* you seem pretty dim. I'djust like to add that I don't know Charlie Gilmour and, if many of hisfriends are anything to go by, I likely wouldn't give him the time ofday. That has fuck all to do with anything.

1 person

1 person

1 person

4 hours ago · Like

Lisa Maria Idge I would reciprocate, but am not sure 'dim' reallysums it up. THe predictability of your response, fairly typical of theproblem 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'tdeserve such a harsh sentence, which re-enforces her view becauseit's not coming from a chummy place. The only thing you seem...See More


Lisa Maria Idge Lol at Dim though. NOt really the standardresponse is it...haha Yeah, you disagree with me so you are thick.How dare you accuse us of elitism!hahahahah Staggering lack of selfawareness. 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 aredim' 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 havethe faculties to engage in discussion, but dim people... you can'targue with them. xxx

4 hours ago · Like

Michael Sayeau �"Is 'it's hard to argue against you because youare dim' better or worse than Laurie calling a prat a prat?" ... Or youcalling the people that you are arguing with her, in nearly everysingle 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 waswrong. 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 'themovem...See More

4 hours ago · Like

Donnacha Kirk I would like to reiterate what Michael said:"Journalists choose where to focus their word counts". Can we dropthe 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 More

3 hours ago · Like

Lisa Maria Idge Donache- I think the lin betweencomment/journalism- the distinction between anthropologist orjournalist is important. Agreed. But I dont think that is what Lauriedid- 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 amclearly dim." Really? I think you have a massive misunderstanding ofhow journalism works, and your failure to understand why LPwasting her time on "I was there..." tabloidishness suggestst...See More

3 hours ago · Like

Halim Boudjeltia Probably Lisa, I don't think it's just elitism butalso protectionism, looking after one's own no matter what and thedelusional over-emphasis on how an artcile can harm a "movement".There was an article on the Daily Mail by Liz Jones decrying Gilmour'sprosecution and most of the comments were against her, luckily therigidly Right Wing Daily Mail didn't create a post called 'Attacking LizJones For Our Readers' and calling for her to edit her article.


Lisa Maria Idge I didn't show that.Which branch of journalismdemands that you are uncritical of individuals because they are partof a 'movement/party/government �'- interested to know. And whendid the 'movement' become the property of a bunch of elitestudents- and why oh why don't you ever learn that chucking theaccusation 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 uploadedan article which described me as thick, cos her, a Labour politico, anda blogger didnt like having the 'labour are here to save us' linechallenged. She wrote a piece of baseless spiteful shit calling methick. I went apeshit. I learned. Realised that actually discussion ofthe problem was a bit more constructive. Which appears to havehappened her. Unfortunately discussion here didn't go your way. Irealised that putting myself out there meant I should warrantecriticism. The fact that the criticism was absurd, has been quiteuseful 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 andactivism, and it proves that our generation aren't as apathetic as theestablishment thought it was. However, there is a differencebetween getting involved in a cause, which transcends class andbackground and whittling it down to a "movement" which ragesagainst anything negative said by someone part of its clique.

2 people

1 person


Rob Johnston �"For a journalist in this position to react to measuredcriticism of an article's content, focus and tone with a "I'm putting myown opinion out there based on what I know and what I saw." issimply not sufficient. " Call me dim ,and I'm ...See More

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 becauseyou'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 ourposts, but get a fucking clue - you have no idea about any of thestruggles any of us are engaged in, our politics or our lives. I couldfinish 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. Todecide we're all 'snot-nosed' 'elitist' wankers because you disagreewith 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 yousnotty kids. And we all have our privileges- I have the privilege ofpeople around me, time, and lots other things. The question is how it isused. TO react hysterically to criticism of a man whose behaviour hadconsequences for peopel who he wont meet- to describe a journalistdescribing an encounter, in an article condemning his sentence- thenthath is a problem. Because it is very much the squabbling of a socialnetwork, whether or not you attend UCL.

6 minutes ago · Like

1 person

Write a comment...

Facebook © 2011 · English (US) About · Advertising · Create a Page · Developers · Careers · Privacy · Terms · Help

Andrew Ian Dodge

defend charlie gilmour from laurie penny cc

Documents