“I’m not sorry to be leaving Guardian newspapers. For years now being Jewish, however non-observant, and working for the company has been uncomfortable, at times excruciating…It will be a joy to know that I’m not a part of that anymore.”
Jay Rayner’s parting shot as he announced his departure from The Observer after 28 years tops off a turbulent few months at Guardian Media Group (GMG). Next week, indignant journalists will be striking in protest at the sale of the paper to Tortoise, an online media organisation. The Scott Trust, they claim, is betraying its commitment to The Observer — a feeling reflected by The Observer’s former editor, Paul Webster, who lambasted the deal as a betrayal when he retired last week.
Rayner also expressed concern at the sale, claiming that “The Guardian has told me they will terminate all our contracts if they can sell The Observer to Tortoise”. Perhaps he was also anticipating this cost-cutting by the new owners as he resigned. But his strongly worded statement about the failure of the Editor in Chief, Katherine Viner to deal with antisemitism struck a chord.
Rayner is not the first big name to have publicly accused Viner of not handling controversial issues as she should. In December 2020, Suzanne Moore jumped ship, having been the subject of a complaint sent to Viner, signed by over 300 “colleagues” after she was finally allowed to write about the gender wars.
Moore was followed by Hadley Freeman in November 2022. She resigned because she was unable to write freely about the “gender issue”. But in her resignation letter she disclosed that she had been warned off writing about Israel “from her perspective as a Jew” describing the paper as “internally dysfunctional”.
I’m no fan of Rayner: it often feels like his ego is bigger than his appetite. A decade ago, I made a joke about his attitude on Masterchef, and received a nasty, vitriolic email in response, despite having never corresponded with him in the past. Nevertheless, I believe him when he says there are antisemites at the paper — because I have encountered them myself. Once upon a time, before I was slowly cancelled from every section of the newspaper, I would go to parties there, and I recall one particular member of staff saying the most outrageous things about Jews under the guise of anti-Zionism.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeJulie calls others cowards then writes this…
“As we now know, a sizable majority of the perpetrators were of Pakistani Muslim origin, because that was the demographic of young men in those towns.”
so any demographic of young men living in those towns would have formed grooming gangs would they? or is there something specific to unite those men ?
i hope to god Unherd doesnt hire Rayner , theres enough unrepentant ex guardian hacks writing here as it is
She could’ve worded it better, i agree; but what i believe she means is that “Pakistani Muslim” is the demographic of those living within the northern mill towns who’re more often described as “Asian”.
There’s no cowardice then, and it’s wrong to call her out for the way she’s expressed something which for a very long time has been unable to be expressed for fear of being called racist or islamophobic.
Its a little clumsily written, but I believe she is trying to make a point about her motivation in writing the story.
She was targeting abusers. Their ethnicity was irrelevant to her. Viner refused to pursue the story further, apparently, because she was concerned about being perceived as targeting Muslims.
It’s a great example of how people whose main concern is not to be seen as racist often end up allowing race to dictate their actions the most.
Islam is not a friend of feminism so I can’t help but be extremely disappointed by so-called feminists who flagrantly run cover for this particular religion as if they are being brave and virtuous by doing so.
It’s called having a sense of perspective and principles that extend beyond the narrow self serving interests of your tribe. You should try it sometime.
A globalist is heard from.
No, it’s actually called BS.
So, it seems, should you.
Islam and the left are strategic and tactical allies in overthrowing Western Civilization. When that happens, they will fight each other to the death in the ruins. My money is on the Muslims and their berserker genes.
Why not target Muslims? They’re the ones causing the crimes, even though it is “the religion of peace.”
“a sizable majority of the perpetrators were of Pakistani Muslim origin, because that was the demographic of young men in those towns” The replies defending this comment as ‘poor wording’ are wide of the mark.
To put it simply, the majority of the perpetrators were not Pakistani Muslim due to the demographics of the town. That is simply untrue and you are quite correct. It shows a general disinterested Impulse to blame this on “men” In general. When people defend the comment they unconsciously allude to the fact that it was unintentional. But it was a genuine revelation of an attitude and itself shows some degree of cowardice.
Exactly
Actually, as they were the line is correct unless you are working on the assumption that there are no grooming gangs from over demographics.
How about if there is a disproportionately high number of grooming gangs from one particular demographic group, taking onto account the percentage of the population.
Are you trying to say “Muslim”? That makes you a racist… um, infidel.
I am working on that assumption. Because none has been found so far, so far as I know.
.
Usual Guardian cowardice. The girls are the spoils of conquest. The merest look at their “Holy Book” would enlighten her.
Read her original article. She makes it quite clear who she is writing about.
Julie and many other feminists have always been hypocritically cowardly on this subject. The reason why the grooming gangs are disproportionately of a certain culture / religion (it is a combination of both as it is only a minority of that religion who behave this way) is because that certain culture / religion tells them it is okay to do what they did. Julie is too afraid to call it out for what it really is.
We urgently need a proper constructive national conversation on the problems associated with “the rise of Islam” in this country, the grooming gangs are just one aspect. When the Southport cover up is fully exposed the conversation will be unstoppable (why I believe the cover up was perpetrated in the first place), though I doubt it will be particularly constructive.
Perhaps it is your own prejudice that views that one line in her writing that way.
Perhaps try to read her actual 2007 article before accusing her of hypocrisy in case you might be accused of it yourself.
Agreed. I think Bindel let her guard down and expressed a view that all men are rapists.
Thank goodness this was the first comment I read. I was fuming, the implication that they were the predominant demographic but it could be any number of others! No no no, this is a particular feature of Pakistani and Afghani origin men. The failure to speak out honestly about this was what led to the equally shameful lack of action. Dare I say that Tommy Robinson, who has been very brave on this front is currently a martyr of British ‘justice’…. once the envy of the world etc..
I’m glad you dared: well said indeed.
Not true. There have been similar grooming gangs in Holland where the perps have been of Moroccan or Turkish origin . Muslim is the relevant factor. The belief that the women and girls of the kuffar are theirs for the taking.
Why is it that people who read the Guardian just have to tell you the first chance they get. ‘Eeugh, did you see that thing in the Gawdian’, they shriek across the aisles in Waitrose. It’s almost as if they think it’s something to be proud of.
Long gone are the days of the Great Editors of the Broadsheets. Time moves on and the current crop reflects that of the political class in general – more talented people opt for other stuff.
The Graun banned me a couple of year back having censored any comment or discussion, however respectful, of the new gender religion.
However, they actually banned me for commenting on the penning one of those nauseating, sycophantic, cliched articles previewing Glastonbury.
They didn’t pointing out it mainly white richer liberal folk who go all in on the ‘politics’ associated with Glastonbury – as most people go the music, drinking and drug taking after all. Mainly what got their back up was me stating there was a distinctly noticeable lack of non-white faces in the audience so surprised they hadn’t played the ‘Race’ Card.
Someone didn’t have enough White Guilt – clearly.
As a very long term Guardian reader and occasional commenter I had a similar experience. A reasonable comment I made on the subject of immigration as a political policy put me into ‘comment premoderation’. I made an idealogical mis-step and needed to be corrected. Goodby Grauniad, nice knowing ya.
“As a very long term Guardian reader….”
There is counselling available
Well, here I am!
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/nov/19/did-you-have-couples-therapy-to-break-up-with-an-ex
Keep in mind it is long term and expensive.
or lucrative if you are the therapist
You are correct. Scott, of the Scott Trust mandated a liberal point of view when he evaded duties and placed The Guardian in trust as a charity.
I honestly can’t think of a more disastrous editorship of any newspaper than Viner.
The cowardly caving in to wokery, pushed especially from the Guarian’s US desk, is one thing.
But the other is that the rest of the paper these days for anyone wanting to read real news is, to not put too fine a point on it, just cr *p.
There are a few real writers and journalists around – Freedland, Rustin, Wintour, Harris, Kenan Malik, maybe a few others. For the most part though its half kindergarten level wokery by numbers and half the sort of stuff you would expect in a teenage features/lifestyle magazine. Part of the explanation is I guess it is cheap filler. The other half if that this is the sort of level of the readership these days, heaven help us.
I’ve only worked for small businesses, so forgive me for this question:
How on earth do journalists, of all people, not notice when their employer is losing money and will need cost cuts to survive?
Any other explanation than, “It’s the Guardian/Observer” would be welcome.
Tbf those who write for the Guardian are not really ‘journalists’ – at least in the forensic sense. These are not people who are easily swayed by evidence.
If they weren’t in journalism they would be working in something associated with bins. Filling, removing, transporting to the tip. That sort of thing.
You make them sound like people who could be otherwise useful. Can that be true?
Yes, binmen seem too sensible.
When is journalist not also an activist ?
This seems less about the Guardian in particular and more about the dying legacy media in general, a collective victim of its own slow, ritual suicide and the need to be seen as “morally correct” as opposed to factual.
To suggest that a group of men involved in grooming gangs had one rather significant feature in common is dismissed as some sort of ism or phobia instead of the fact that it is. An actual reporter would then be curious to learn why this fact is a fact, daring to ask why this group acts in such a manner.
The rather significant feature was the reaction of the Police and Authorities to the very high density of incidents.
“This group” = Muslims. Why not say it?
Julie Bindel also makes excuses for Muslim grooming gangs, using misinformation:
‘a sizable majority of the perpetrators were of Pakistani Muslim origin, because that was the demographic of young men in those towns.’
In the most famous case, Rotherham, the Muslim population isn’t unusually large. Similarly in Cambridge, Telford and others.
Perfect encapsulation.
I’ve gotten tired of the Guardian’s relentless hatred for Elon Musk. Elon, like all of us, is not a perfect person, but is not deserving of the sheer level of hate from the so-called liberal media, which I no longer consume. The word “liberal” used to refer to someone who was tolerant and broad-minded, the Guardian is anything but that.
Robert Conquest was right and nominative determinism is a fallacy. Liberals are authoritarian, The Conservative Party is radical, Antifa are fascists, communists are mass-murderers, socialists entrench privilege, Reform is conservative, the woke scum are unaware, Labour has abandoned the working class, and “anti-racists” are racist.
The face of the editor is all you need to know about the Guardian.
That’s how people outside of the cult view it now: scratch a Leftist and you’ll find an anti-Semite (holding what they call an ‘anti-Zionist’ position).
But on ‘the Zionist state’ the Anglo-European Left will double down and press on with their pet internationalist cause, as they form more and more potent alliances with political Islam.
The Guardian has turned into a piece of shit propaganda rag, and I am surprised that these folks didn’t resign a long, long time ago. Another harridan of the same ilk as Vilner just bit the dust at Scientific American. It seems this class of ladies permeates these left propaganda sites and I wonder why. Is it they sold their integrity for a few shekels to do their handlers bidding or do they really believe the pap they publish, while being antisemites? Doesn’t really matter, the Guardian is a rag, and the writers leaving should have had to integrity to leave a lot sooner. It seems the world of journalism is populated with so-called journalists with highly developed situational ethics, which means no integrity. We need a whole new crop of real journalists.
The same sort of woman you describe is the new editor of the Wall Street Journal and her influence has quickly become evident. I have already decided to let my subscription lapse after being a WSJ subscriber for years.
We mustn’t underestimate the high degree of mental illness in journalists and other polemical writers.
The woke spell is slowly lifting. We will look back incredulously on all the damage done.
I comment on the guardian for fun but there are some commenters I dislike, like the Monday columnist who has a problem with Modi in India for prioritising Hinduism but thinks the Muslim brotherhood who priorities Islam is all fine & dandy. Feels hypocritical. Then they run headlines that Israel is “killing people at unprecedented rate” which is ludicrous to anyone who knows the history of conflict but is intended to up the hate levels and got by the editor. Of course the Guardian being liberal still filters some of the far-left’s worst rhetoric which believe me that is cesspit of anti-jewish hate and propaganda.
Does this go on at all papers or just the sanctimonious Guardian?
Pretty much all of them. It’s worse in the US where they are falling like dominos.
Not knowing what is the Scott Trust I searched: The Scott Trust is a British company that owns Guardian Media Group, which includes The Guardian and The Observer. The Trust’s purpose is to:
Protect the financial and editorial independence of The GuardianPromote liberal journalism and freedom of the pressUphold the values of CP Scott, the editor of the Manchester Guardian The Scott Trust was established in 1936 and became a limited company in 2008.
The disclaimer of promoting liberal journalism should be a disclaimer at the top of every page of that hideous rag. I’ve been a fan of Melanie Phillips for years and I’ve not heard her mention this detail of The Guardian, which/whom she now holds in contempt as anti Semitic and anti Israel.
Any political perspective can literally be taken to the extreme of being nonsense and The Guardian is proof perfect. I suspect if anyone still reads it, the rationale would be to see the shocking most extreme nonsense.
So how is it that Tommy Robinson is being persecuted in a British prison today ? This is one more lead story, along with the story about Pakistani grooming gangs which The Guardian will miss. Check out their advertising – “The kind of journalism you just read is becoming scarcer in the US: trustworthy, rigorous, human-made – and not controlled by a billionaire.”
Happily journalism is reverting to actual journalism in the US. That is one point to be made.
But further, the Scott Trust was formed by a very wealthy family to evade taxes and promote a cause that is, in actuality, adverse to the mission of journalism. It would be accurate to call the entire company a fraud. Suit should be brought against it in the public interest to dissolve the company and sell it off to a real media group.
Didn’t I say that journalism from a mandated political perspective will take the perspective to the point of nonsense ? Make that … to the point of fraud.
As an avid newspaper reader, I subscribed to the Guardian for many years. After all, some of its in depth journalism is, without doubt, the best in the U.K.
However, what is also, WITHOUT DOUBT, is the huge bias that the newspaper has against Jews and Israel. I had no option but to stop my subscription. There was no way I was going to fund a newspaper whose bias verged on hate and lies.
Good to see Jay Rayner leave that vile institution.
The left consumes itself at regular intervals. Nothing to see here, move on.
“I first met Viner when she was editor of the Guardian‘s Weekend Magazine; it was a great newspaper, and The Observer the best Sunday around.”
Sorry Ms Bindel, neither of these encomiums are even remotely accurate. Both publications have been nauseating and insufferable since long before the era referred to.
The Guardian should return to Manchester.
Bindel is being disingenuous. Check out my piece here for more on here disassembling https://open.substack.com/pub/gusdoug0506/p/fascist-fuckwts-revenge?r=kv1qy&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
It was a group of men in a Northern town who were targeting girls.
Its not difficult.
They were Muslim. This information is not insignificant.
They were also brown. Mostly Pakistani Muslim family men and stalwarts of their community who were wickedly exploited by white girls with loose morals who were likely to end up as prostitutes anyway. Nothing to see here just move on.
It’s a word that must not be said unless in praise.
Glad you posted that. I’ve noticed that not-so-subtle game of semantics in our media. It’s actually so obvious that you can make a good guess who’s involved in a story when race isn’t mentioned.
“Men targeting girls”? You know the perpetrators can’t be White and you also know the victims could be White. Otherwise the headline would mention race: “White men targeting Muslim girls”. The population demographics preclude the use of “White men targeting White girls.”
I’m not sure exactly how the -ism grifters managed to get such a firm grip on so much of the MSM but they’re fooling absolutely no-one.
Which is missing the point in more ways than one.
Yet more evidence-free claims of ‘antisemitism’ from closest Zionists.
That, for me, is the real story here. What qualifies as ‘anti-semitic’?
And before you hit the downvote button, read the article again, replacing the words ‘antisemitism’ with ‘misogyny’ and ‘Jewish’ with ‘woman’ and watch your inner right-wing rage demon get all flared up.
Fair point
Have you even read the article? And by the way Julie Bindel is a socialist feminist.