[Closed] Julie Burchill

That is horrific, poor woman. And the fact it is a supposed journalist and writer organising it is even worse.

Awful.
I remember Burchill and Parsons writings from when started at NME and they seemed amazing. How did she end up like this? Truly appalling. She should never work again.

I am old enough to have been an avid NME reader at the time Burchill and Parsons were hired. It's been bizarre to watch their transformation from entertaining anti-establishment icons to bitter ageing fascists.

Burchill. Friend of Rod Liddle.

Rod Liddle the perpetrator of domestic violence who still has a job as a columnist. Not much dot-joining required here.

Nasty people generating nastiness to feed the tropes that 'justify' their salaries.

There is a special place in hell for the likes of Liddle in particular.

I seem to have made it to 42 years old in life without having heard of her before, and was all the better for it. I've just done some reading, what a truly awful person. She really shouldn't be given a voice by publishers. Toxic, hate driven disgusting person. She seems to be up there with Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins and the Home Secretary, not great company.

I'd love to know how much this case has cost her.

Just nice to see people being pulled up for it tbh. Ive got no idea who that woman is though.

As has been said, she was great at the NME, now just vile.

After 40 you are indeed responsible for your own face. QED.

NB I once snuck out of a crowded carriage into First Class and who did I sit opposite (and chat with a bit)? Parsons himself in full punk regalia and having bought himself a 1st Class ticket. What a

She's an absolutely vile woman. She used to write for the Guardian and I remember wondering why she did so as her weekly columns seemed far more suited to the Daily Mail

Did anybody see the story about the torygraph apparently looking at pay per click salaries for journos. You can just see where that approach is heading. It's just another divisive tactic to carry on the them and us narrative that people like Burchill, Liddle and loads of others love to perpetuate as it benefits them.

The race to the bottom continues apace

Violence or the threat of violence or abuse of women is okay apparently, if the victimized woman is an ethnic minority and the woman doing the bullying is a white feminist.

Got to love people hey?

As has been said, she was great at the NME, now just vile.

Alcohol has eroded the wit and humour. All that remains is the bitterness.

This, from her, only a decade ago.

I just don't believe that drink creates racism from nothing; it simply brings out what lies dormant. Racism alone is something to be ashamed of - but racism combined with the cowardice not to admit to it is a truly vile combination.

I'd love to know what makes anybody issue such defamatory and unsubstantiated statements like those and then think it's ok to stick them on the public domain.

Just a shame this won't make the headline pages on any of the mainstream press.

It's staggering that people like her can do that without being arrested. Let alone profit from it all.

What an awful human being.

he seems to be up there with Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins and the Home Secretary

And add her ex mate Toby Young as well as Parsons to the growing list.

The sad thing about Burchill is she had talent, a different take on things and was a rare working class voice in the media, when she started anyway, writing in the NME as folks have said and her column in the guardian could be great. And she could properly commit to an entertaining media feud (thinking with Suzanne Moore). Dunno if there's a moral? Possibly that professional contrarians can become what they started out despising?

I do wonder if Rod "the paedo" Liddle and Gobby Toby will be chipping in a bob or two ? It was a bizarre thing to jump in on, the original story wasn't funny and very creepy and to go straight for the lazy right wing cliche of whataboutery, a witless wonder.

And add her ex mate Toby Young as well as Parsons to the growing list.

The sad thing about Burchill is she had talent, a different take on things and was a rare working class voice in the media, when she started anyway, writing in the NME as folks have said and her column in the guardian could be great. And she could properly commit to an entertaining media feud (thinking with Suzanne Moore). Dunno if there’s a moral? Possibly that professional contrarians can become what they started out despising?

Everyone can claim they aren't a racist until they interact with someone not from their cultural background, who has something to say about a historically white western topic. It doesn't surprise me that she lost her shit at Ash Sakar as Burchill probably thinks she's entitled to be the one directing and making opinion on her topics of interest, as she's a white independent woman and all the other women in the world are clearly not as enlightened as her. She's a trend setter, sticking it to the man, unlike these brown girls who are clearly still under the influence of the patriarchy and have no agency of their own.

My twitter experience had been Burchill-free until I saw her tweets aimed a Ash Sarker back in December. The sheer volume of vitriol was mind-boggling, I suspected that she might have been a tad unwell to say the least.

I reported those tweets, blocked Burchill and my twitter experience improved somewhat. I am shocked that Burchill deleted her own tweets and wasn't thrown off the platform for hate speech, but there you go.

Burchill's new book about "woke" or some other manufactured nonsense has found a new publisher, a truly delightful individual - according to Burchill “I’ve found someone who’s JUST LIKE ME - not only can I work with her, but have a lot of fun with her, and we know how much I like THAT.”

I used to read NME regularly, but stopped when their reviews became more about the reviewers own politics than what the music had to say, and anyone or anything that didn’t fit comfortably into their own little niche got thoroughly trashed - Burchill and Parsons were at the forefront of that style of journalism. I started buying HiFi News and Record Reviews instead, because it gave each album a review based on its actual merits as a recording. That would have been in the 1970’s...

I would have thought that calling that lady’s god a paedo might end up with something worse than a fine.

Impossible

I simply dont believe this, that a Spectator & Telegraph columnist could be so bigoted

The Society of Editors insisted British press are clean as a whidtle

https://www.societyofeditors.org/soe_news/uk-media-not-bigoted-soe-responds-to-sussexes-claims-of-racism/

She just seems like she has about the saddest life imaginable. Suffered some real personal tragedy in her life, yet she's been such a vile creature either side of it that sympathizing with her is very hard. (FWIW I do sympathize with anyone that has lost a child, and anyone that has lost anyone close to suicide)

The Society of Editors insisted British press are clean as a whidtle

I believe the head of the SoE has since had to quit, though I might be misremembering

I'm almost starting to feel a bit sorry for her, clearly not the whole ticket but deep down she knows what she is. Almost, but not quite.

You wonder how much it's really heartfelt/believed and how much it's just trying for controversy and easy column inches. Thing about that being, it's not actually that easy- people look at Hopkins and the like and think "she's a proper idiot, I could do that" and don't realise just what a rare and toxic mix of personality traits it takes to be good at it. She got a lot of mileage out of "John Peel was a paedophile" after all and I don't think she believed a word of what she was writing then.

I just don't understand how anyone can write or say the things she did and then manage to sleep at night. I was having a stressful time about six months ago and snapped at someone on here and called them a prick. I still feel terrible about it and feel a right moron for typing it.

Not heard of her till this thread and after a glance at what she wrote im bloody glad I hadn't.

You wonder how much it’s really heartfelt/believed and how much it’s just trying for controversy and easy column inches.

I think this is more common that people understand. I watched a documentary abut this where papers like the Mail Express etc will offer £X fro a column about [insert controversial subject here], but given a spin that the paper's looking for.

I just don’t understand how anyone can write or say the things she did and then manage to sleep at night. I was having a stressful time about six months ago and snapped at someone on here and called them a prick. I still feel terrible about it and feel a right moron for typing it.

Probably because:

A) You have a conscience

and

B) Your wealth (and that of your masters) doesn't depend on stirring up hatred, under the thinly disguised veneer of 'saying the unsayable'.

I read somewhere that lots of the people who write for the Daily Mail etc are actually very intelligent and not necessarily right wing, they just know their audience and how to push their buttons.

I'm not sure that's the case with Burchill though she seems to have just become very bitter and unpleasant.

BTW John Peel kinda was, wasn't he? I mean, more like exploiting impressionable teenagers than grooming kids but still. Pretty sure he boasted about shagging 15 year olds in an interview at some point.

Edit: it's worse than I remembered. 🙁

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-peel-allegations-metoo-radio-1-jimmy-savile-a9097866.html

I'm not sure which is worse.

Actually being a vile, bitter person and taking it out on other people.

Or

Pretending to be a vile, bitter person to earn money.

In her case (as with most of this genre) I suspect it is a genuine level of nastiness that gets positively reinforced by the ability to monetise it and riff off of the responses to generate more 'content'.

At least in medieval times people could just nip down to the village stocks to take out their hatred for a few minutes and get it out of their system. Probably more civilised.

I think, like a lot of 'controversialists' she's found a very good living writing opinion pieces, columns and so on. I don't think she's particularly better or worse than say Young or Liddle, or Littlejohn  I think they're all pretty mercenary when it comes to their 'beliefs' and probably all think they're far cleverer than they actually are, and all (to a greater or lesser degree) overinflate their own importance.

If they didn't exist there would be others to replace them.

There are controversialists like Jordan Peterson, who's views are fairly abhorrent but doesn't descend into abuse like that - and then there are people like Bill O'Reilly and Katie Hopkins. Burchill is one of the latter.

I note that the Telegraph is considering moving to a model whereby "journalists" pay is linked to the popularity of their articles - and by popularity I assume this to be online shares, likes etc.

Just perfect for wide scale bot amplification.

You wonder how much it’s really heartfelt/believed and how much it’s just trying for controversy and easy column inches.

I would guess its a mix. Some definitely seem to be in it initially for the column inches but given that they then have to go more and more extreme over time to keep controversy high I suspect that has to shift their internal base lines especially when they get attacked in return.

BTW John Peel kinda was, wasn’t he? I mean, more like exploiting impressionable teenagers than grooming kids but still. Pretty sure he boasted about shagging 15 year olds in an interview at some point.

Edit: it’s worse than I remembered. 🙁

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-peel-allegations-metoo-radio-1-jimmy-savile-a9097866.html/blockquote >

and this is buchill in the guardian on sacred cows:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill

 

Things are not working out so well for poor Julie

Julie Burchill has dropped the new publisher for her book Welcome to the Woke Trials after the publisher was identified as a supporter of the UK white nationalist group Patriotic Alternative .

Guardian Linky

Things are not working out so well for poor Julie

Good.

Can't understand that - sounds like they were a good fit for each other.

and this is buchill in the guardian on sacred cows:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill
/blockquote>

We really don't want to look under that stone. National treasures Bowie and Page are probably lurking there. And speaking of Stones lets not forget a certain bass player.

 

BTW when I mentioned Burchill vs Peel, I didn't mean she shouldn't have criticised him- but she jumped on other people's hard work and her most famous articles on the subject were outright dishonest. Frinstance she accused him of using child prostitutes- just a lie and one she eventually retracted after repeating it several times. (her "evidence" for that was that he described some of his casual sex partners in the 60s as "customers" because they came to him for sex- she somehow spun that as proof that he was paying them).

In the end her bullshit undermined the more legitimate criticism, as quite often happens, but it put her back in the public eye as it was supposed to.

The Society of Editors insisted British press are clean as a whidtle

I believe the head of the SoE has since had to quit, though I might be misremembering

He has indeed, and I hope he's lost in unemployment. He was previously editor of the Southampton Echo and some other local minor Daily-Wail type rags, which he drove into the ground, but not before waging a 30-year war on cyclists (his pet hate) and specifically stirring anti-cycling feelings in the New Forest.

Julie Burchill has dropped the new publisher for her book Welcome to the Woke Trials after the publisher was identified as a supporter of the UK white nationalist group Patriotic Alternative .

But they were best buds on Sunday. It's probably a wise move for the Burchill to drop this one lest she ends up embroiled in yet another furore over hate speech. An audio of the publisher's tearful apology to patriotic alternative is on YouTube, it's both utterly vile and toe-curlingly awful “I work in the arts and they are awful there. I am already called their favourite Nazi, even though I hardly ever say anything on my normie Twitter.” , not to mention referencing JQ which doesn't require a GCSE in 20th century history to understand.

Truly horrible stuff.

Hahahah searched for that publisher - what a ****ing whack job

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulaakpan/status/1371458159496282112

I started buying HiFi News and Record Reviews instead, because it gave each album a review based on its actual merits as a recording. That would have been in the 1970’s…

And that children is why punk had to happen.

I've never understood the appeal of columnists. Why would I want to pay attention to anyone who is paid to manufacture opinions week-on-week - and often to stimulate controversy?

Possibly jealousy as I was working on the relatively underpaid news side, but I still don't really get it.

I’ve never understood the appeal of columnists. Why would I want to pay attention to anyone who is paid to manufacture opinions week-on-week – and often to stimulate controversy?

Possibly jealousy as I was working on the relatively underpaid news side, but I still don’t really get it.

Petty, nasty (but also insecure) little people looking for affirmation that they are 'not alone' in wanting to 'say the unsayable'.

It's the progressive nudge-nudging of society towards a more self-centred, rats fighting each other in a sack, model that helps populists.

So long as you're seen to be hating on some 'others' the dead-eyed masses will follow...

Total sidetrack but Jimmy Page was mentioned up there - this is a mental read.

https://www.vintag.es/2018/06/jimmy-page-lori-maddox.html

I’ve never understood the appeal of columnists. Why would I want to pay attention to anyone who is paid to manufacture opinions week-on-week – and often to stimulate controversy?

Possibly jealousy as I was working on the relatively underpaid news side, but I still don’t really get it.

It cuts both ways though (even if the salaries don't). Recall Burchill weighing in to stuff like the Iraq war and Israel v Palestine and it was just Nah. Didn't really work, no one's interested - you can't pivot into the great issues of the day after spending 20 years spitefully taking the piss out of celebrities.
Proust managed it, mind. Perhaps 'Welcome to the Woke Trials' will be the great introspective book of our times?

I just don’t understand how anyone can write or say the things she did and then manage to sleep at night

Drink. Drink before, during and after? The self-styled existential punk pensmiths became self-hating park-bench drunks shouting random abuse at passers-by. For as long as the coins continue to clatter on their heads, for as long as they can hear the resultant hubbub and the sound of their own names - then that bench will stay warm. Because arses.

The self-styled existential punk pensmiths became self-hating park-bench drunks shouting random abuse at passers-by

And don't forget powdering ones nose. It's astounding how many of these folk recall their time "Holding court at the Groucho" when the wait-staff (i.e. the ones that weren't off their tits on booze and drugs) remember all off them as "That fat bird/bloke slurring incoherently to him/herself in the corner"

Actually being a vile, bitter person and taking it out on other people.

Or

Pretending to be a vile, bitter person to earn money.

There is the existentialist ‘middle’?

Or, ‘Schrodinger’s ****’.

I’ve never understood the appeal of columnists. Why would I want to pay attention to anyone who is paid to manufacture opinions week-on-week – and often to stimulate controversy?

The music industry has thrived on manufactured controversy for decades - teenage girls fawning over Frank Sinatra were referred to as Bobby Soxers and were portrayed in some sectors of the media as a threat to public morality - the marketing men loved this and exploited accordingly.

Petty, nasty (but also insecure) little people looking for affirmation that they are ‘not alone’ in wanting to ‘say the unsayable’.

It’s the progressive nudge-nudging of society towards a more self-centred, rats fighting each other in a sack, model that helps populists.

So long as you’re seen to be hating on some ‘others’ the dead-eyed masses will follow…

Dannyh has nailed this, I don't have anything constructive to add.

I just don’t understand how anyone can write or say the things she did and then manage to sleep at night

Because controversy sells - Burchill's revelation in 2008 that she "skived" from attending film screenings did not deter her from writing reviews about movies she'd never actually seen kinds of sums up how seriously she takes her own work.

Burchill's helium voiced, bitchy acerbism might have been edgy when she was seventeen, but forty-odd years later her "my friends won't talk to me in the playground because I voted Leave" schtick is cringeworthy in the extreme:

"they're all filthy remain-urs"

"I think a lot of it is parasexual..."

The self-proclaimed "Chistian Zionist" Burchill's short-lived new best mate has been unmasked as an anti-semite, so she's had to cancel her own work about "cancel culture". It's fair to say that her own career is likely to implode and no doubt her current employer will try to extract maximum mileage out of this, while simultaneously hanging her out to dry.

The next media gremlin will be along in a week or so.

I’ve never understood the appeal of columnists. Why would I want to pay attention to anyone who is paid to manufacture opinions week-on-week – and often to stimulate controversy?

Similar to this, I have to turn over when TV news insists on interview random members of the public in the street.
When I watch the 10pm news and they are talking about post covid economic recovery, I want to hear opinions of academics, historians, politicians, statisticians etc. I really don't care what unemployed Bob says on his way to Greggs for a steak bake.

It’s astounding how many of these folk recall their time “Holding court at the Groucho” when the wait-staff (i.e. the ones that weren’t off their tits on booze and drugs) remember all off them as “That fat bird/bloke slurring incoherently to him/herself in the corner”

🙂 I like this. There was that very brief moment when journos thought they could be heroes...

I’ve never understood the appeal of columnists. Why would I want to pay attention to anyone who is paid to manufacture opinions week-on-week – and often to stimulate controversy?

...when they could come on here and do it for free?

When I watch the 10pm news and they are talking about post covid economic recovery, I want to hear opinions of academics, historians, politicians, statisticians etc. I really don’t care what unemployed Bob says on his way to Greggs for a steak bake.

The tyranny of vox pops - best summed up with "I think you'll find that most people have had enough of the experts" (Michael Gove, 2016).

Over the last three decades there's been a notable shift away from subject matter experts quoted in the media to polemicists. This is why we've had (Burchill) someone with only a secondary school education being employed to articulate the finer points of international diplomacy vis a vis the United Kingdom leaving the world's largest trading bloc and my perennial annoyance James Delingpole (with a degree in English Language) here, contracting himself and in way over his head because he's being asked to present an expert view of something way outside of his area of expertise.

Unfortunately, the public at large don't see it because they might like what Delingpole and Burchill have to say about this week's manufactured grievance, but don't understand the difference between a rent-a-gob and someone who knows what they're talking about.

seems Paul nailed back in 79 (reportedly)

The next media gremlin will be along in a week or so.

Unfortunately, shutting up Piers Morgan is proving a bit more difficult than I thought.

I can’t say how much I dislike Julie Burchill. Vile person.

Takes contrary social and political viewpoints to seem edgy, for sheer contrariness and to make empty noise. Has made a habit of the same type of approach but regarding music, art and film etc. Does all of this, speaking in an affected, completely unnatural way.

I am sure she supported Leave, precisely because she didn’t think the campaign would be successful and could then spend the rest of her career complaining about it and peoples lack of tolerance and clear thinking. When Leave won, I am sure she had to find a way to still make herself the victim - hence this play.

Unfortunately, shutting up Piers Morgan is proving a bit more difficult than I thought.

You have to ask yourself, the likes of P*ers M#rgan and Lozza Fox who stand on an "anti-woke" platform, what are they actually standing for?

Unfortunately, the tabloid reading ****s have been programmed to believe that the EU/"The Left"/Labour/Woke/Meghan etc are the reason why things are more shit today than they were twenty years ago.

[Burchill] Takes contrary social and political viewpoints to seem edgy, for sheer contrariness and to make empty noise. Has made a habit of the same type of approach but regarding music, art and film etc

She's always done this, it's far easier for her to be contrarian about stuff that she hasn't actually listened to or viewed, sneering faux-intellectualism from someone who is held in contempt by the people she used to frequent the Groucho Club with.

@oakleymuppet - out of interest, what views of Peterson do you consider abhorant?

I’ve never understood the appeal of columnists. Why would I want to pay attention to anyone who is paid to manufacture opinions week-on-week – and often to stimulate controversy?

It's cheap is why and fills space. It doesn't take long to write an opinion piece vs actual journalism which requires time-consuming research.

For example, the Guardian these days is maybe 60% opinion pieces.

out of interest, what views of Peterson do you consider abhorant?

Can we not go down this shitstorm route again please. It never ends with anything other than flounces and thread closure.

Can we not go down this shitstorm route again please. It never ends with anything other than flounces and thread closure.

Peterson is painted as a demonic entity by many on the left, but when pushed they tend to be unable to articulate a single idea of his, instead, it's all projection and hearsay.

Hmm...Peterson himself argued that Gender Studies should be "defunded" and that undergrads should avoid subjects like Sociology, Anthropology, etc anything "corrupted by neo-Marxists", hence him being feted by the likes of well known intellectual bankrupt Toby Young.

on the left

And that's it, I'm oot, cheerio. Have fun.

Peterson is painted as a demonic entity by many on the left,

JP fanbois shouldn't act like a bunch of cultists then.

Peterson’s descent into prescription drug addiction and Eastern European quack remedies has been interesting* to hear about.

*Now when I say, “interesting”...

Hmm…Peterson himself argued that Gender Studies should be “defunded” and that undergrads should avoid subjects like Sociology, Anthropology, etc anything “corrupted by neo-Marxists”, hence him being feted by the likes of well known intellectual bankrupt Toby Young.

I'm not sure what's abhorrent about that though?

Peterson disagrees with post-structuralist/post-modern theorists. Is that so wrong especially when these ideas have recently been recycled into the absolute truths of critical social justice?

I think it's more being the poster boy for the incel movement most people find objectionable

Peterson disagrees with post-structuralist/post-modern theorists. Is that so wrong especially when these ideas have recently been recycled into the absolute truths of critical social justice?

Parklife!

It's no wonder he became an addict if he followed his own incredibly basic, unhelpful advice on dealing with addictive behaviour.

Lol @DD

PJM1974
Free Member

The next media gremlin will be along in a week or so.

It is interesting just how few of them actually manage to do it for the long run and also do it in any volume. Like, Katie Hopkins emerges from time to time to say something horrible so she's got longevity, but how much of her stuff really gets any attention? She's a persistent floater but only a little one. And even that puts her way out in the lead of most of these shits who at best leave a horrible smell.

Very very few people get to really block the pipes like Tucker Carlson.

So yep there'll always be another one along in a minute which is good for media companies but not so good for their victims, or for us, but interestingly not for the failed gremlins who get melted. Which makes you wonder why people choose that career route. You have to be both good and lucky and like I said earlier, the actual combination of personality traits needed is rare. Is it all just that everyone who's got the capability to do it, also lacks the awareness that it might not work, the capacity for doubt?

I think it’s more being the poster boy for the incel movement most people find objectionable

That's entirely imagined.

Peterson is simply a conservative academic psychologist with a penchant for Jung.

That some reactionaries seem to associate themselves with him seems to have caused some to turn him into a hate-figure.

Peterson is simply a conservative academic psychologist with a penchant for Jung.

He's not though is he. He talks endlessly about all sorts of subjects which have nothing to do with his specialism, but trades on his position of authority as an academic.

Basically he got famous by making a fuss about not wanting to use preferred gender pronouns at his university, then realised he could get lots of media attention with his 'anti-woke' stance. He might not be far-right himself but he's very very popular with people who are - why is that?

That’s entirely imagined.

It's really not. Peterson suggested that they should be "assigned Mates" to prevent them from taking their rage out on society. But like eddiebaby suggested,  let's not get into a thread about Peterson.

He might not be far-right himself but he’s very very popular with people who are – why is that?

That's called a fallacy of attribution. One could condemn Nietzsche by the same token.

It’s really not. Peterson suggested that they should be “assigned Mates” to prevent them from taking their rage out on society. But like eddiebaby suggested, let’s not get into a thread about Peterson.

Do you have the quote for that because I believe you may be taking him out of context?

He’s not though is he. He talks endlessly about all sorts of subjects which have nothing to do with his specialism, but trades on his position of authority as an academic.

Sure, he's a public intellectual. 99% of youtube is people talking about things they don't have an academic specialisation in.