[Andy McDandy]

LGB Alliance, or "Nice gays you can take home to your mum" as one gay friend of mine puts it.

[The Weeping Angel]

For clarity, the article he wrote is in The Telegraph, not The Guardian (who I assume had some sort of link to it, but it goes elsewhere now).

Also, he has a book out - hence taking the Telegraph's coin, and it not just being on ideological principles that fit well with the Telegraph's core audience. The Mail has got in on it too and quoted the article.

He's also been a trustee of the somewhat dubious LGB Alliance since 2021. You can look them up for yourself, but suffice to say, they're the LGB equivalent of the Taxpayer's Alliance, and are a lot more about promoting what they want than representing the people they claim to. And I draw that comparison very deliberately, because the LGB Alliance are based at 55 Tufton Street. I invite you to reach your own conclusions on this factoid, but we all know the address is not exactly showered with glory.

None of that excuses him having a shitty time at the sharp end of activists who push it too far. That sort of behaviour closes down reasonable debate. But he also wouldn't be the first person who has had a change of heart after coincidentally observing that holding certain opinions can be quite lucrative. Unfair? Possibly. But I'm not the one with a hot topic book deal, the Telegraph's money in my pocket and a senior role for an organisation linked to US evangelical and right-wing groups that claimed anyone not strictly L, G or B was akin to someone who had sex with animals:

Are there comparisons with Rowling? Sure. But that goes both ways. Not everyone who is challenged on their views decides to go full U-turn, and not everyone who changes their mind also throws in with some really unpleasant types and questionable organisations. Though I suspect that's not the comparison that you were hoping for.

If you're going to rely on bad writings takes as a source then there's not really much I can do.

[The Weeping Angel]

I'd also that trying to smear as being motivated by money is pretty shitty.

[Killer Whale]

That's a pretty bold statement on a forum that has a long history of discussing wingnut welfare and assorted right-wing grifters.

[Andy McDandy]

I'd also that trying to smear as being motivated by money is pretty shitty.

There's a reason "follow the money" is a pretty good mantra. Personal enrichment is one of the most common motivations there is.

[The Weeping Angel]

Yeah how dare he write a book.

[Crabcakes]

In brief:

1. Not relying on the tweets other than they conveniently retweeted the LGB A tweet about bestiality. I’d go direct to the source, but they deleted it after outcry.

2. Just step back a sec - if a former climate change activist swapped to become a denier, started working for a 55 Tufton St. outfit, started writing for The Telegraph and had a book out on his change of heart, would you really, honestly think “Yeah, guy looks sound to me”?

He might be legit. He might not. I don’t know - but I know I’d certainly find it more convincing if he didn’t have the links he now appears to have.

[The Weeping Angel]

1. Bad writing ironically takes itself to be guilty of bad writing and is one of the worst accounts on Twitter/Bluesky.

2. Two articles over a three year period doesn't make one a regular columnist, and he is allowed to write for them. Just as he is allowed to be a patron of the LGB Alliance and write a book, you then draw sinister conclusions to insinuate he's a bad person who is only it for the money. I notice you didn't dispute what he said.

[Crabcakes]

Feller, at least read what I wrote. I couldn’t give 2 shits who the tweets were by - I was using them for the tweet they quoted from the LGB A. I can find you someone else who quote tweeted it if it really bothers you.

And yes, he’s allowed to be all those things - just like I’m allowed to point out he writes for the telegraph and takes money from a Tufton Street outfit. I don’t like the Telegraph or Tufton Street outfits for very sound reasons - and I’d wager you usually don’t either.

And he’s also entitled to his opinions. I disagree with some of them. But they’re opinions - I can’t disprove that, because it’s not like he’s claiming the Earth is flat. It’s not a “gotcha” because I don’t immediately reel off a peer reviewed, citation-heavy essay refuting every point.

[davidjay]

If I started thinking Thatcher was a visionary who Made Britain Great Again I'd be allowed to write a book and work for the Telegraph. I also hope I'd be condemned in perpetuity as a mendacious cunt who should burn in hell alongside the evil old psychopath. People change their minds all the time; it doesn't make them immune from criticism on either side.

[mattomac]

LGB alliance are opening hostile to a lot of areas of the gay community, if he has chosen to become a trustee of such an organisation then he’s made his bed.

[The Weeping Angel]

Feller, at least read what I wrote. I couldn’t give 2 shits who the tweets were by - I was using them for the tweet they quoted from the LGB A. I can find you someone else who quote tweeted it if it really bothers you.

And yes, he’s allowed to be all those things - just like I’m allowed to point out he writes for the telegraph and takes money from a Tufton Street outfit. I don’t like the Telegraph or Tufton Street outfits for very sound reasons - and I’d wager you usually don’t either.

And he’s also entitled to his opinions. I disagree with some of them. But they’re opinions - I can’t disprove that, because it’s not like he’s claiming the Earth is flat. It’s not a “gotcha” because I don’t immediately reel off a peer reviewed, citation-heavy essay refuting every point.

You don't want to discuss what he said in the article; instead, you have found two things that paint him as a 'bad person'.

1. Robert Wintemute has written two articles in three years for The Telegraph. I mean, I can't imagine he got a lot for that.

2. Wintemute is a trustee of the LGB Alliance. Trustees generally don't earn money from their charities; perhaps it's different at the LGB Alliance. Robert Wintemute is a professor at King's College London; he doesn't work at Tufton Street.

[Crabcakes]

Fine, let’s discuss the article. He was signatory to a document that failed to include enough women on its decision panel. This was being noticed, and around the same time he lost some work from an organisation that was entitled to not employ him should he start to voice opinions that didn’t fit with their core aims. He then found some of his friends didn’t like what he’d now started saying either, so decided the best solution to this was to become trustee of a questionable organisation and start speaking at their events (which, I assume he was paid for). He then made the most of the publicity when a talk he was going to give on behalf of the LGB A saw protesters throw flour at him to land a book deal.

Sounds like a guy who was worried his reputation might be about to be damaged so walked some stuff back, got called out on stuff he said when doing said walkback and lost work as a consequence, but took the opportunity to take new work from a dubious organisation and now his views are increasingly aligned with said organisation. He’s faced some protests, but the main thing seems he gets the hump when people don’t agree with him, such as the single summer school student whose disagreement with him appears to have triggered his entire about face. Which seems a bit unlikely for an experienced professor. Regardless, he’s entitled to his opinions and to work for whoever he wants. They’re not people I’d work for, and I would say they’re actually red flags as far as employers go, but it’s his choice.

[The Weeping Angel]

That's a very one-sided version of what happened.

[The Weeping Angel]

The student stormed out of the classroom in a huff if anything, I'd say it was the student who was being unreasonable.

[Crabcakes]

The student stormed out of the classroom in a huff if anything, I'd say it was the student who was being unreasonable.

Oh sure, the student was unreasonable. But a “hot-headed student walking out on a crusty old professor and his dated ideas” is hardly a rare thing - that professor taking it as a catalyst to do a u-turn on their opinion is, though.

And yes it’s one sided - but I’m not the BBC and I’m not required to be balanced. But it’s always been one sided, hasn’t it, because we only have his words from his article to go on as to mindset, motivation etc. - which is why I went off looking at what else he was doing and who else he is involved with. That paints a somewhat different picture to the one of the humble academic reaching a moment of clarity, and in turn my take on what he’d written.

If he changed tack purely to protect his reputation and distance himself from an increasingly questioned bit of work he wouldn’t be the first academic to do so - and trust me, I know some very senior people who have gone to extraordinary lengths to do just that, up to and including demanding a harmful treatment be kept on the NHS books so people don’t question their past work. It absolutely happens. If he decided to do so for financial reasons, same applies - he’d be far from the first. If he just likes ego stroking and enjoys people now applauding him, he’d likely be joining the majority of long tenure academics. Or he might be entirely genuine. Thing is, I don’t know. But perhaps I would be less inclined to be as distrusting if his change in opinion didn’t also involve the particular associations he now has. Smiling photos of him with Maya Forstater and her calling him “Mensch” from 2021 also suggest he made such associations remarkably quickly after his change of mind, so it’s not like he seems to have wrestled with it much or been concerned about winning round the former friends he apparently lost.

[The Weeping Angel]

The student stormed out of the classroom in a huff if anything, I'd say it was the student who was being unreasonable.

Oh sure, the student was unreasonable. But a “hot-headed student walking out on a crusty old professor and his dated ideas” is hardly a rare thing - that professor taking it as a catalyst to do a u-turn on their opinion is, though.

And yes it’s one sided - but I’m not the BBC and I’m not required to be balanced. But it’s always been one sided, hasn’t it, because we only have his words from his article to go on as to mindset, motivation etc. - which is why I went off looking at what else he was doing and who else he is involved with. That paints a somewhat different picture to the one of the humble academic reaching a moment of clarity, and in turn my take on what he’d written.

If he changed tack purely to protect his reputation and distance himself from an increasingly questioned bit of work he wouldn’t be the first academic to do so - and trust me, I know some very senior people who have gone to extraordinary lengths to do just that, up to and including demanding a harmful treatment be kept on the NHS books so people don’t question their past work. It absolutely happens. If he decided to do so for financial reasons, same applies - he’d be far from the first. If he just likes ego stroking and enjoys people now applauding him, he’d likely be joining the majority of long tenure academics. Or he might be entirely genuine. Thing is, I don’t know. But perhaps I would be less inclined to be as distrusting if his change in opinion didn’t also involve the particular associations he now has. Smiling photos of him with Maya Forstater and her calling him “Mensch” from 2021 also suggest he made such associations remarkably quickly after his change of mind, so it’s not like he seems to have wrestled with it much or been concerned about winning round the former friends he apparently lost.

So you don't know but you'll just assume he is doing it for bad reasons instead.

[Crabcakes]

So you don't know but you'll just assume he is doing it for bad reasons instead.

No. I don’t know, but because I don’t know I’m not inclined to just take a Damascene conversion at face value, and having looked into him and his associations after that event, I have concerns.

To flip it, you’ve now been made aware of those concerns and don’t seem remotely bothered. I mean, not to hammer the point home but further below you’ve essentially said you’re not fussed by someone writing for the telegraph. And yet in the Telegraph thread, May 23rd:

I see Aaron Bastani is writing for the telegraph.

You clearly do consider writing for the Telegraph as a questionable thing, yet Wintemute gets a free pass because…what? That he happens to align with your thinking?

As you can appreciate, at best this seems inconsistent.

And I note you haven’t said much about the LGB Alliance affiliation, other than to seemingly suggest it doesn’t matter because people can do what they want and they’re not his day-to-day employer. Which, to take an extreme comparison, would be like saying it’s fine for someone to be a member of Britain First because their main job is stacking shelves in Tesco.

To sum up, I don’t know and am unlikely to ever know this man personally, so all I can go on when judging whether to take what he says at face value is his actions and his publicly visible alliances and associations. They give me pause. If they don’t also give you pause, then fine.

[davidjay]

And yet again I wonder what it is about this subject that arouses such strong feelings from people on whom it's impact is, at best, minimal.

[Abernathy]

Well, yes. When I kicked this thread off I think I said in the OP that I wasn’t interested in the sort of hammer and tongs, here’s the hill I’ll die on sort of bitter arguments that we’d seen with “Lord Kobel”, but that I just wanted to understand the issue better.

I suppose we’ve done well to last three years without knives being drawn.