As another citizen of Twitter said, well done those women.

Also in Trans Activists Hell Bent On Expelling Everyone Who Fails To Endorse The Dogma:

Dave Chappelle’s latest Netflix special is facing a wave of intense backlash after the comedian once again made jokes directed toward the LGBTQ+ community and defended the author JK Rowling, who has been previously accused of transphobia.

“Who has been previously accused,” says Maya Yang sanctimoniously.

Journalism needs to do a better job on this. Lots of people have been “previously accused of transphobia,” because journalists and others don’t hold these accusers to account. They don’t insist on a clear and exact definition of “transphobia,” so what they get is just 17 trillion venomous accusations which don’t mean anything. We’re all accused of “transphobia” as long as we don’t echo every stupid syllable of the Tranz Gospel while putting money in the plate. The reality is that none of it is “transphobia”; what it is is a rejection of the idiotic new dogma and the commands to forget all about sex because now it’s only “gender” that counts, and what gender is is whatever you want it to be, darling, provided you’re not one of those horrible transphobes we need to exclude for the sake of inclusion.

In The Closer, which premiered on Tuesday on Netflix, Chappelle declared himself a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (Terf) alongside Rowling. “They canceled JK Rowling – my God. Effectually she said gender was fact, the trans community got mad as shit, they started calling her a Terf … I’m team Terf,” the comedian said in the special, which is one of the most watched pieces of content on the streaming site.

“Gender is a fact. Every human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass through the legs of a woman to be on Earth. This is a fact,” Chappelle added, before saying that “trans women’s” genitalia are “not quite what it is”.

He means sex is a fact, but anyway, yes. Gender shmender blender, but women do the heavy lifting when it comes to keeping the supply of humans going.

Netflix subscribers have urged the streaming platform to take down the special, with the National Black Justice Coalition saying, “With 2021 on track to be the deadliest year on record for transgender people in the United States … Netflix should know better. Perpetuating transphobia perpetuates violence.”

See? It’s the magic expanding suitcase of “transphobia.” Saying that men don’t gestate human beings isn’t transphobia, it’s reality.

Now arguably saying it with irritation (as I just did) is a kind of transphobia, but it’s a narrow kind that also needs to be spelled out as opposed to assumed. A lot of us do say it with irritation, it’s true, but that’s because it’s 1. bullshit and 2. harmful, and because we’re not allowed to say so. It’s bullshit the way religion is bullshit, the way reincarnation is bullshit, the way the claim that there’s a magical race of beings hiding behind a planet is bullshit, the way recovered memory is bullshit. Claiming that physical sex is trivial and meaningless and that what determines who is a woman and who is a man is what’s inside each person’s head is peak bullshit, and if we can’t tell irritable jokes about it…well then we’ll just tell more irritable jokes about it.

Yang goes on to report more complaints and protests and argle bargle, while not saying anything about objections to the complaints etc etc, merely quoting Chapelle complaining about them and then giving another complainer the last word. Not exactly a balanced piece of reporting.

Oh yes, of course there’s another aspect to this business of Trump’s determination to stop people testifying and producing evidence now that he’s out of office. What is that aspect? Four little words.

Ohhh right! Obstruction of justice! That’s what he’s doing, and it’s a no-no. Witness tampering: no no, not allowed, put the phone down.

Of course that means nothing if the Justice Department looks the other way out of politeness or some such shit.

Dennis Kavanagh says the tide has turned.

Note the “empathy, compassion.” Not for the likes of Kathleen Stock of course.

But it didn’t work out the way he expected.

Some “women’s officer.”

Trump’s goons plan to ignore the subpoenas, because he told them to. Telling them to equals telling them to invite prosecution and conviction and a sentence, but whatevs, that’s their problem.

All four Trump aides targeted by the select committee – [Mark] Meadows, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, strategist Steve Bannon and defense department aide Kash Patel – are expected to resist the orders because Trump is preparing to direct them to do so, the source said.

It’s not clear how Trump can “direct” them to do anything. He’s not their boss and he’s not god of the universe. They don’t have to do what he tells them to do.

But increasingly concerned with the far-reaching nature of the 6 January investigation, Trump and his legal team, led by the ex-Trump campaign lawyer Justin Clark the former deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin, are moving to instruct the attorneys for the subpoenaed aides to defy the orders.

So the ex-boss’s attorneys are “moving to instruct” the underlings’ attorneys to protect the boss at their own expense. But the underlings’ attorneys are the underlings’ attorneys, not the boss’s. I don’t see how the boss’s lawyers get to “instruct” the underlings’ lawyers to throw their own case. I hope they send a message back instructing Trump to go fuck himself.

Trump’s strategy mirrors the playbook he used to prevent House Democrats from deposing his top advisers during his presidency. The former White House counsel Don McGahn, for instance, only testified to Congress about the Mueller inquiry once Trump left office.

Yes but the key difference there is during his presidency. This isn’t that.

House select committee investigators had demanded that the four Trump aides turn over emails, call records and other documents related to the Capitol attack by Thursday and then appear before the panel for closed-door depositions next week.

But with the former president expected to insist to Philbin that Meadows, Scavino, Bannon and Patel mount blanket refusals against the subpoenas, the source said, the select committee at present appears likely to see none of the requests fulfilled.

Again – what force does Trump’s “insisting” have? Who cares what he insists? He’s just some guy who cheats at golf.

Brighton and Hove News reports:

A targeted campaign against a philosophy professor accused of transphobia has been condemned as harassment by the University of Sussex.

Posters demanding the university fire Kathleen Stock appeared on campus this morning, and smoke bombs were set off as a masked protester held a banner saying Stock Out at the entrance to campus.

The protesters say Professor Stock seeks to exclude and endanger trans people by, for example, supporting female-only spaces and sport and questioning the safety of puberty blocking drugs prescribed to minors.

In other words she seeks to support the safety of women and of minors who want to harm themselves by halting puberty. She doesn’t seek to endanger anyone, and she seeks to “exclude” men from women’s spaces, because women need some spaces away from men. Some kinds of exclusion are permissible and necessary.

This latest campaign today posted a “mission statement” on its Instagram page which said: “Stock is one of this wretched island’s most prominent transphobes, espousing a bastardized variation of ‘radical feminism’ that excludes and endangers trans people.

Yo, radical feminism is about women. It’s not about trans people, nor should it be.

It concludes: “Our demand is simple: fire Kathleen Stock. Until then, you’ll see us around.”

A University of Sussex spokesperson said: “We were extremely concerned to see the harassment towards our staff member and took immediate action in response to this, which we continue to do.”

yatakalam has been reading the ruling so that we don’t have to. It’s quite remarkable.

Nelson says she gets “misgendered” when she gets coffee or goes to the grocery store. Nonsense. Commercial transactions don’t work that way. The only pronoun likely to come up is “you.” Nelson seems to be a bit of a liar on top of everything else.

These clips are sickening to read.

More pronoun gibberish from the BC human rights tribunal:

A former server at a Gibsons, B.C. restaurant has been awarded $30,000 after a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decision found they were unfairly terminated for asking managers and co-workers to call them by their proper pronouns.

That’s the lede and already we’re in the woods. Who were unfairly terminated? The tribunal? The restaurant? One of the advantages of non-customized pronouns is that they convey information – that’s what they’re for. They don’t always convey all the necessary information, for instance when there is more than one she or he involved, but they’re better than a vague “they” that could refer to anything, including a group of objects.

The whole article is like that – you keep having to stop to correct what you thought you’d just read. No you don’t get used to it, because it’s inherently confusing and clumsy.

The decision says bar manager Brian Gobelle was particularly hostile, repeatedly and persistently referring to Nelson with she/her pronouns and with gendered nicknames like “sweetheart,” “honey,” and “pinky” — a reference to their pink hair.

The situation eventually escalated into a verbal altercation between Nelson and Gobelle, during which Nelson touched Gobelle’s shoulder and called him “sweetheart” in return — though Cousineau determined this did not amount to a physical assault.

Touched? Or slapped? From another account I read it appears Nelson slapped his shoulder.

Nelson was fired.

“Eventually [Kingsberry] told Jessie Nelson that they had just come off ‘too strong too fast’ and were too ‘militant’ — a word that reminded Jessie Nelson of what Mr. Gobelle had said about them,” Cousineau wrote.

“They challenged Mr. Kingsberry that they were being fired because of their pronouns. Ms. Coplin recalls Mr. Kingsberry telling Jessie Nelson that ‘part of the problem is making sure you vibe with the team,’ and that they had made people uncomfortable.”

They who had made people uncomfortable? It’s unclear, it’s confusing, it’s ambiguous – just what you don’t want in a legal ruling.

Following their termination, Nelson alleged that Gobelle’s conduct towards them, and the employer’s response, amounted to discrimination in employment based on their gender identity and expression.

But when “gender expression” becomes a matter of ordering everyone to use scrambled pronouns to refer to you then you’re making the job more difficult than it has to be. That’s not a plus.

In her decision, Cousineau wrote that “like a name, pronouns are a fundamental part of a person’s identity. They are a primary way that people identify each other.”

That’s nonsense. Pronouns are not like a name, that’s the whole point of them. And we don’t get to make ordinary parts of speech personal and special to us and our precious IdenTitty, because language has to be shared to work. All these stupid narcissistic tedious road blocks are not The New Utopia, they’re a giant pain in the ass.

“Using correct pronouns communicates that we see and respect a person for who they are. Especially for trans, non‐binary, or other non‐cisgender people, using the correct pronouns validates and affirms they are a person equally deserving of respect and dignity.”

Fuck that. Life isn’t nursery school. It’s not anyone’s job to pamper and cuddle and soothe all these wounded Victims of Gender. We’re not required to use the incorrect pronouns in order to “validate” every whiny narcissist we encounter.

How is it not obvious how stupid and childish all this is? On the one hand you have the real injustice of the residential schools, for example, and on the other hand you have this ludicrous privileged spoiled-brat tantrum. How can anyone think they’re on an equal footing?

No, “preferred pronouns” are not a human right. A Canadian human rights tribunal thinks they are though.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favor of Jessie Nelson, a British Columbia restaurant server who is biologically female but identifies as nonbinary. Nelson, who asked colleagues to use “they” and “them” pronouns, was repeatedly called “she” and “her” by former colleague Brian Gobelle, who also called Nelson nicknames such as “sweetheart,” “honey,” and “pinky,” the tribunal’s ruling said. After Nelson unsuccessfully asked Gobelle to stop, the employee went to management, who declined to intervene right away, the court said. Nelson and Gobelle then got into a heated discussion about the issue, and Nelson was fired four days later for coming on “too strong and too fast” and being too “militant.”

Ok there’s more than one issue here. The male colleague should definitely not have been calling Nelson unwanted sexist nicknames, and management should have immediately told him to stop. If she then tried to tell him to stop and then got fired for it, that’s highly unfair.

But the “pronouns” are another story. She shouldn’t be ordering fellow employees to remember not to use the pronouns that come naturally, but instead ones that don’t, because that’s a lot of mental effort for a fundamentally stupid enterprise. People shouldn’t take their priceless bespoke identities to work.

“Using correct pronouns communicates that we see and respect a person for who they are,” Devyn Cousineau, a member of the tribunal, wrote in the 42-page ruling. 

One, no it doesn’t, but two, since when is that something we have to do on the job? Jobs aren’t about “seeing people for who they are,” they’re about doing the job. It all sounds so very The Office. Imagine if Michael had had pronouns to mess around with; he could have spent all day every day creating drama about them.

“Especially for trans, non-binary, or other non-cisgender people, using the correct pronouns validates and affirms they are a person equally deserving of respect and dignity.”

Again, not what people go to work for, but also – no actually it doesn’t. Using the “correct” i.e. incorrect pronouns for Certain Special People in fact betrays that they have no dignity. People who carry on about “their” pronouns are childish and laughable. Who doesn’t know that? It’s all just an elaborate pretense, this “validation” nonsense. Less “Joe forgot their invoice” and more “Oh grow up” would be the way to go.

Nelson felt it was important to bring the fight for equality for all transgender and nonbinary people facing discrimination, according to a statement provided during the testimony portion of the tribunal.

It’s not [bad or unlawful] discrimination to call a woman “her.”

“I am here today in bringing this forward because it is important for me, as a trans person, to have my existence respected. I’m a human being with a beating heart and a desire to be seen and valued and heard in the world,” Nelson testified.

Then do something worth seeing and valuing and hearing. Having Special Pronouns is not it.

The tribunal also ordered the restaurant to implement a pronoun policy.

They’ll need an eyeroll policy with that.

Other government entities have taken steps toward promoting gender-neutral policies, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently urging “pregnant people” to get vaccinated against COVID-19…

Yes and that’s a bad thing. These Special Flowers in search of Recognition and Validation are shooting the legs out from under feminism, but they’re too stupid and too self-obsessed to realize it. They’re poisonous.

First, a news item from the Toronto Star August 21 [warning: graphic violence]:

Rhoderie Estrada went to sleep likely around 10 p.m. after folding laundry, watching Korean dramas and putting her three young daughters to bed in their two-storey East York home.

In the early hours of May 26, 2018, her husband came home to a nightmare — Estrada lying bloodied on their bed with head injuries too severe for him to perform CPR.

Now, after five days of deliberations, a jury has found Yostin Murillo and David Beak guilty of the first-degree murder and sexual assault of Estrada, a 41-year-old long-time dialysis nurse at St. Joseph’s hospital who adored — and was fiercely protective — of her children.

Fast forward to September 28:

One of a duo convicted of bludgeoning a woman to death after breaking and entering her home, robbing and raping her is now seeking transfer to a women’s prison. Fearing the inmate’s pattern of repeat violent criminality may be a barrier, transgender activists are protesting as discriminatory a clause in the prison policy that allows male convicts to be denied transfer to women’s prison if deemed a health or security risk.

Yes because obviously the tender feelings of a man who raped and beat a woman to death are far more important than the fears of women who will be forced to share prison space with him.

Also obviously he’s definitely sincere about Feeling Like A Woman Inside and not at all using the policy of putting men in women’s prisons if they say they are trans as a way to get away from other men and at vulnerable women.

No, his shirt needed no improvement.

Abortion Access Front explained:

No matter who you are, if you have a uterus, abortion is only and always YOUR choice. We are sure @DaveBautista will approve of our fix to his shirt! #AbortionAF

No matter who you are, if you have a uterus, you are a woman or girl. It’s women who get pregnant, not people in general. Women are subordinated and dominated and denied basic rights for exactly that reason, so no, it’s not a generic “you” who needs abortion rights, it’s women.

H/t Sackbut

Rewire News is also avoiding the word “women” when it reports on abortion and the campaign to make it illegal again.

“Even though the legal question doesn’t have to do with abortion, the stakes here are still incredibly high, especially for people in Kentucky,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, who will argue the case on October 12.

But Kolbi-Molinas doesn’t mean people in Kentucky, she means women in Kentucky.

If Cameron is able to intervene and the law gets upheld, it could effectively ban abortion after 15 weeks in a state that has just two clinics and multiple restrictions, including a 24-hour waiting period and bans on insurance coverage of the procedure. Both clinics are in downtown Louisville, which means access is limited for people in other areas of the state.

It’s not people who need access, it’s women.

On both sides.

Dominic Raab has rejected the idea that misogyny should become a hate crime in the wake of the Sarah Everard murder, but then appeared confused about its meaning as he suggested it could apply to abuse against either women or men.

You can’t make misogyny itself a hate crime – that’s just stupid. You can point it out and fulminate against it and try hard to convince people to get rid of it, but you can’t make it a crime. It would be like making atheism a crime, or theism, or belief in reincarnation, or not liking grapefruit.

Perhaps the idea is to make it an aggravating factor in crimes against women? That would make a little more sense, I guess.

The justice secretary, who has said he is not a feminist and previously complained about the “raw deal” men are getting, said it was his “number one priority to make sure women feel confident in the justice system”.

I bet it’s not though. I bet he said that because it seemed politic, but I bet it’s not.

However, pressed on BBC Breakfast about whether misogyny should be a hate crime, he appeared not to understand the term as he said “misogyny is absolutely wrong, whether it’s a man against a woman or a woman against a man”.

Well yes, there’s no mere “appearance” about that; he clearly doesn’t understand the term. You can use “sexism” that way but not misogyny, because of the “gyny” bit. The “mis” is hatred and the “gyny” is women. The word he wants is “misanthropy,” hatred of humans.

Graham Linehan tells us that David Lammy told a whopper about the silence of his constituents on the trans issue. It’s quite a startling whopper.

Speaking to Rachel Burden on Radio 5 Live, 29th September, Lammy criticised the BBC for focusing on  “identity issues” and denied that voters are concerned about gender ideology, saying to Burden “you have chosen to ask me about an issue that has never, ever been raised on the doorstep”.

He took an almost identical line while talking to Nick Robinson of BBC’s Today programme on the same day. “Nick you are deliberately asking me about an issue which you know does not come up on the doorstep. It’s a bit of a trap to get caught up on identity politics.”

It’s maddening in more than one way, that claim. It’s maddening in its dismissiveness about the concerns of women, and it’s maddening in its absolutist nothing to see here take when we know there’s everything to see.

Now, activists from Lammy’s own constituency Labour Party (CLP) have revealed they told him that former Labour voters had expressed despair that the party is ignoring women.

Graham gives four examples of such expression, the final one being that Lammy

Met with women party activists who spoke with him for three hours, detailing their concerns about the Labour party’s support for Self-ID. He agreed that the women in the party should be widely consulted on the issue.

There could be an argument that Lammy is justifying this in his head with the fact that he said on the doorstep, which means the public in general, as opposed to Labour activists…until you scroll down and read the conversation with one of those activists.

Now I’d started to meet a lot of women… I was already aware of all of this, by the way, I am a signatory of Labour’s Women’s declaration. So I have lots of friends within that group…and I knew what was happening and what was going on. And then I started to meet people on the doorstep. And there were more and more women, and we have quite a high lesbian ratio of women in this area. A lot of them moved here thirty odd years ago and found it a good place to stay and they liked it. So they were being very open on the doorstep and saying “we’re just not voting for them. What do they think they’re doing?” And I’d say you know “I’m totally on board with you and I’m not the only one. There’s loads of us fighting.”

So that’s…you know…the doorstep.

Read on.

Apparently the hospital situation is as bad as ever.

NHS trusts are “gaslighting” patients over the inclusion of transgender patients on single-sex wards, a whistle-blower nurse has warned.

Dr Sinead Helyar said that in at least one trust if patients question why there is a male-bodied person on a female-only ward, medics have been told to “reiterate… that there are no men present”.

I don’t know why the Telegraph calls her a nurse and then a doctor, but anyway, we’ve heard this story before, and it’s pretty sick-making that it hasn’t been fixed.

Official NHS trust policy documents also compare patients who ask for single-sex spaces to racists and label them “transphobes”, “offenders” and “perpetrators”, she said.

Staff who raise safeguarding concerns may be threatened with disciplinary action or even criminal charges, according to Dr Helyar who warned that the NHS is influenced by controversial LGBT charity Stonewall.

That doesn’t sound like “influenced by” so much as “taking dictation from.”

Speaking in a personal capacity to a panel organised by parliamentary campaign group Children and Women First at the Conservative Party conference, Dr Helyar said that NHS policy is “formulated and enacted to the detriment of women”.

She said that many trusts, often under the influence of Stonewall, had developed transgender accommodation policies that “have failed to consider the rights and needs of women” and instead of equal treatment “prioritise male transgender patients in the very spaces set out for women”. 

You can’t have “equal treatment” in this situation when the whole issue is separation. If women want to be separate from men while men want to be in women’s spaces, you have to pick one or the other, you can’t provide “equal treatment.” Equal treatment isn’t always the right answer to a question. The rich and the poor alike are free to sleep under bridges.

A spokesman for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said that their guidance “aims to strike an appropriate balance” and the trust “strives to treat all people in its care and all staff with dignity and respect.”

No, that’s your problem right there. There is no “appropriate balance.” If I come to your house and grab a wheelbarrow load of your stuff, you’re not obliged to strike an appropriate balance such that I get to keep half of your stuff. Women should never be pushed to “balance” their right to safety and privacy with men’s desire to take that right away.

A Stonewall spokesperson said: “Trans women should be able to access dignified and high-quality healthcare in the same way as everyone else.

“Inclusive healthcare practices make us all safer and, in 2021, it should not be controversial to ensure that all LGBTQ+ people get the healthcare and support that they deserve.”

At Stonewall, we’ll continue to work with public sector organisations, including NHS trusts to ensure that their LGBTQ+ staff are supported at work.”

Blah blah blah waffle waffle evade evade. Notice that spokestwerp carefully never says what’s at stake. Dignified and high-quality healthcare, fine, but the issue is men insisting on being on women’s wards because they identify as women. If men can force their way onto women’s wards then where is the dignified and high-quality healthcare for them? Stress doesn’t help with healing, so forcing women to accept men on their wards is not high-quality anything for them.

The Catholic church knew and did it anyway, Facebook knew and did it anyway.

Facebook’s internal research found that Instagram, which it acquired in 2012 for $1 billion, makes eating disorders and thoughts of suicide worse in teenage girls, whistleblower Frances Haugen said in a “60 Minutes” interview on Sunday.

Haugen, a former product manager at Facebook, gathered internal documents as she grew frustrated by the company’s prioritization of growth and user engagement over its negative impacts, The Wall Street Journal reported.

According to internal studies retrieved by Haugen, Facebook found that 13.5% of teen girls say Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse, and 17% of teen girls say Instagram makes eating disorders worse.

Well, look at it this way: Instagram is just one of many. Women and girls are constantly bombarded by images and videos and marketing that tell them how fabulous they’re supposed to look and how disgusting they are if they don’t look fabulous in that correct way.

“And what’s super tragic is Facebook’s own research says as these young women begin to consume this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed. It actually makes them use the app more,” Haugen said. “They end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more.”

And from Facebook’s point of view the key bit there is not “hate their bodies more and more” but “use the app more.” Which one puts more money in Facebook’s pocket? There you go.

Maybe it’s something about the Catholic church? Is that possible?

An estimated 330,000 children were victims of sex abuse within France’s Catholic Church over the past 70 years, according to a report released Tuesday that represents the country’s first major accounting of the worldwide phenomenon.

The figure includes abuses committed by some 3,000 priests and other people involved in the church — wrongdoing that Catholic authorities covered up over decades in a “systemic manner,” according to the president of the commission that issued the report, Jean-Marc Sauvé.

Of course they did. They’re the church, God’s own representatives on earth, so obviously they get to decide. Raping children is just God’s reward to all these goddy celibate men for managing his propaganda.

Olivier Savignac, the head of victims association Parler et Revivre (Speak Out and Live Again), contributed to the investigation. He told The Associated Press that the high ratio of victims per abuser was particularly “terrifying for French society, for the Catholic Church.”

Savignac assailed the church for treating such cases as individual anomalies instead of as a collective horror.

Kind of like the way the police treat Wayne Couzens as an individual anomaly.

Sauvé denounced the church’s attitude until the beginning of the 2000s as “a deep, cruel indifference toward victims.”

That’s one of the problems with godbothering: the focus is on the imaginary Boss Man and the Boss Man’s deputies, and the mere human beings are just his slaves.

You know…if most of your police despise women, then your police are not going to be very good at pursuing cases of violence against women. They’re more likely to decide it was actually her fault, or a “sex game,” or a misunderstanding, or too trivial to bother with.

The father of a woman who died after being choked by her abusive partner has accused police of paying “lip service” to the protection of women and girls and called for a public inquiry into the culture of UK policing.

West Midlands police apologised last month for a number of failings in the case of Suzanne Van Hagen, 34, who suffered months of domestic abuse before she died in February 2013.

They were called nine times, but somehow they just couldn’t figure out what was going on.

A neighbour, who was asked by police to keep a log of suspected abusive incidents at Van Hagen’s flat, made a note of 27 occasions before she was found dead with bruising around her neck.

…

Officers said that bruising around her neck was the result of a sex game and ruled the cause of death was an accidental drug overdose.

Suppose it was indeed “a sex game” – why is it her neck that was bruised? Whose idea was it to play that particular “game”? Why are men never found dead as the result of a “sex game” i.e. choking? Why is it always women who are choked and men who explain to the police that they were playing a game?

On one occasion, a police family liaison officer told Van Hagen’s younger sister: “Your sister had two legs and she should have used them.”

Wayne Jones, the detective who led the failed investigation into Van Hagen’s death, was sacked two years later for sexually harassing four female colleagues.

There it is. You have your sexual harasser cops, so you put them in charge of investigations into violence against women. That will work out beautifully.

Owen Jones:

Also Owen Jones: