Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

A Tanya Gold comment piece on the same day, truly our cup runneth over.

Are you talking about the Woody Allen piece, because “he wasn’t convicted” is an argument you’d expect to see on Reddit and not being made in earnest by people being paid for their opinions.

No, something about the Royals that’s probably completely inoffensive other than that it points to the Guardian commissioning Tanya Gold again.

Is Tanya Gold worse than she used to be?

What the fuck is with sour terfs and their rush to defend Woody Allen? I thought the whole reason they were terfs was because they were always trying to justify their bigotry by saying they were worried about men raping women and children?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESvkYt-XQAEZ7uw?format=png&name=large

I think a lot of it is linked with controversies regarding the no-platforming of certain views.

“Should small children in poverty be fed?” asks the Guardian. https://t.co/yg3NpmXWmM

— Dawn Foster (@DawnHFoster) March 10, 2020

asking the big questions here so the Taxpayers Alliance don't have to.

People are dying you self-centred fool

Just want all colleagues I know personally who signed a letter without naming me but linking me to trans people leaving The Guardian (I never go there ) None of you have the guts to talk to me or defend free expression. You are entitled to disagree with me as I am to name you.

— suzanne moore (@suzanne_moore) March 18, 2020

finger on the pulse as always

Apparently she’s saved ‘abusive’ DMs from a colleague she’s allowing her followers to think is OJ.

A good friend of mine is friends with her on FB and he says all her social media acolytes respond to self-pitying status updates with the most sick-making level of arse-kissing he’s ever seen.

Gosh, can’t believe terfs are ok with the bit of casual homophobia. Totally out of character.

As far as I can see, that tweet is illiterate.

This person is a long-standing professional writer.

(Leaving aside, as Gyac says, the utter irrelevance of the complaint at this time of seemingly unprecedented global disaster. Astounding.)

Blame the psychedics

Psychedelics are supposed to obliterate the ego

Some people need bigger doses than others I guess

Some people are bigger doses...

Bingo

New development! I am reliably informed that SM has a little list... and uploaded it so all her FB friends could see it and kiss her arse harder,

There's a grim fascination in how their actions undercut their arguments

"I'm not hateful, I'm speaking my mind" *continues to do hateful shit*

having a normal one pic.twitter.com/v5KaU1eRW5

— Cynical Bathtub (@cynical_bathtub) March 19, 2020

It's amazing that she keeps hammering the fact that she never goes to the Guardian offices, as if that's going to make trans employees any less uncomfortable about working there.

Even more amazing that she thinks this looks like anything other than a monumental self-indulgence at this particular time.

Once again, this professional writer cannot write.

Otherwise: reminiscent of Father Ted collecting his Golden Cleric award.

Oh the irony.

xp 😅

Sarah D*tum all snippy about being a better writer than the signatories in the letter and OH WELL THEY WON’T COMMISSION ME NOW.

Babe, I’ve seen more literate FB hunnis and Twitter reply guys in just a random hour of social media use.

Suzy's right!

I looked at the document as a useful guide to cool commissioning editors.

I looked at the document as a useful guide to cool commissioning editors.

Sarah D*t*m couldn’t write a post-it, idk where she gets these notions. Some of the worst game writing I’ve ever read (maybe I was spoiled by growing up reading Digitiser but I sincerely doubt it).

She’s been in a terfy white-feminist circle-jerk for a decade, where do you think she gets ideas above her station?

Otherwise: reminiscent of Father Ted collecting his Golden Cleric award.

LOL, this is so perfect.

Anyone else look at this today and wonder if John Harris was now producing all of their video content under a number of different guises?

https://i.imgur.com/GvG8ORa.jpg

Crace has always been unfunny, a buffoon at best. Running this tripe is just an abject failure at an editorial level. https://t.co/aqKRj5Wsry

— James Mackenzie (@mrjamesmack) April 2, 2020

god bless the grownups

fellow grauner Chakraborty pointed out earlier that rather than being admirable, his action more exposes the pernicious lie that "NHS debt" always was.

looks like Suzanne Moore has gone off the internet because of psychedics you

Crace still isn’t as bad as Michael White was but that’s an almost impossibly low bar to crawl under. The Hancock piece is garbage.

I see Katy Balls of the Spectator is being given an increasingly prominent role as a political commentator.

I don't think the Hancock piece is the worst ever, but at the heart of it is this:

To fend off ongoing criticism of the government’s testing programme by committing to 100,000 tests per day by the end of the month.

Given that the government has consistently missed even its own piss-poor targets – we’re struggling to manage 10,000 tests a day at the moment – it was understandable that most of the questions were on whether 100,000 was hopelessly optimistic. But Matt was adamant. He couldn’t exactly promise how many of the tests would be antibody and and how many antigen, but 100,000 was the hill he was prepared to die on. No more bullshit. No more obfuscation. A real target with his job on the line if he failed to deliver.

The article praises MH for promising so many tests, even as it notes that it is unlikely that they will happen.

It notes that he has promised these tests and put his job on the line (?). But assuming that this number of tests doesn't happen, which is likely, will the same commentator point this out and demand that MH resign in, say, a week?

No.

The government has repeatedly promised things and not done them, has mismanaged this crisis very dangerously and damagingly, and here they are being praised for more of the same BS.

That doesn't make sense.

We should be spending this effort scrutinizing the most serious and leftwing newspaper in the UK, the FT

You've got to pay for it so..🤷

lol, i've still got my employee log-in five years after it should have been cancelled.

A free taste:

https://i.postimg.cc/VNbsRTn5/Delete.png

can't go back to john harris after that

Re: Suzanne Moore et al - have we noticed the new form of online arseholism where someone you’re disagreeing with on eg. Twitter pulls the dick move of telling you to stay inside? Or the thing I had last week from a random PR jumping into my mentions/conversation with my friend with ‘stay in doors’ (sic)?

Not a new article at all, but I've never felt as confident that the Guardian is a class enemy as after this: was searching for a good breakdown of what the best homeless charities are to donate to, and I found this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/22/how-do-i-help-rough-sleepers-homelessness-money-begging-street?fbclid=IwAR23kuKe2iDGTvKrEsn1L6uIryk-RcL_zjwjzSVjs-o2K7eC1iZz0yLFVrQ

Which included this:

UK homelessness charities are almost unanimous on the question of giving money: it is better not to. Some charities acknowledge the intended kindness, others are vociferous in saying don’t.

Thames Reach, which has been working in London for more than 30 years, says its outreach workers and the Metropolitan police find 70-80% of people begging on the capital’s streets are taking class A drugs such as crack cocaine and heroin, and in Birmingham all 43 people arrested in a crackdown on begging tested positive.

Across the country, four in 10 say they have or are recovering from a drug habit, and a quarter from a drink problem, says Homeless Link, the umbrella body for the sector. Charities and police also report that six in 10 people begging had a home to go to.

Not only does money often fuel addictions to drugs and drink (usually super-strength lager and cider), it also delays people seeking or accepting help with addiction or other health problems and moving off the streets, according to Thames Reach’s online advice, which says: “Giving to people who beg is not a benign act. It can have fatal consequences.”

How idiotic is to assume that:

a) ppl giving beggars money don't know it's for drugs and booze
b) helping someone get the quick relief of a dose of their addiction is morally worse than letting them suffer
c) those who can't get access to their drug of choice will inevitably drop the habit and go into rehab?

Not to mention the paternalistic tone of the charity, which seems more invested in getting ppl to submit to it than actually helping anyone. I know that's the charity talking but a journalist just taking these things as givens is pretty wtf to me.

i might feel okay about it if they were ordering gin and tonics or maybe a quick ricard. but super-strength lager? CIDER? not on my dime, buddy! hmph!!

begging a classic topic where ppl overcompensate for the combination of ambiguity & guilt with rationalist prescriptivism

disability and homeless charities have been abysmal during a decade of austerity where they could have done with being more about actively helping people and attacking the causes of their despair, their disenfranchisement and their deaths. Rather than signing gagging orders and being toothless govt lackeys just trying to mop up after a failing state and adopting that vile paternalism on display in that piece. fuck most of 'em imo.

when nearly everyone involved is doing a bad job I tend to think about the structural problems, which might suggest they've all been comprehensively fucked already

one of my fave examples of pathetic, toothless charity kowtowing was the National Autistic Society giving a heartfelt thanks and congratulations to the Conservative govt for u-turning on their policy for people with autism qualifying for blue badges. Without a mention of the test case they had just lost in the high court brought against them by the family of an autistic person, who they gave no fucking support to at all.