Sometimes, it's just a cigar

This is our truth, tell us yours

Our contempt for those who court publicity

I don’t know Dr Brooke Magnanti. I use know in a traditional sense.

We talk on Twitter, occasionally. I admire her wit and brains, and delight in her kindness to my fellow author. Her story is one that intrigues and amuses me, and I take great hope in the way she has parlayed the shit that has happened to her into an after-life of some value and influence.

Her current legal troubles say far more about where we live, and what is wrong with this country, than I could.

This post, by Brooke, is revealing and important about where she is right now.

Read it.

Then read this post, that appeared here today. The methods are similar.

Brooke prizes evidence, and sources, and identifies them. The Daily Mail, and other papers that have reported her ex’s claims, seem less scrupulous. The difference is that one of them is adopting the scientific method, to which the Daily Mail and, to be fair, most British tabloids, is alien.

We have rules here, which are almost cliches. One of  them is that the plural of anecdote is not data, and that each individual anecdote is not data either.

Brooke presents evidence. Her ex tells his story, unsupported by evidence. It really is that simple.

However, there is a coda to this story, about why it matters to me.

During my training I spent too much time in the lower courts, watching as husbands tried to use the legal process as an opportunity to attack their ex’s. Quelle surprise. Nothing changes.

When you seek to use the courts to fix your problems in relationships, there are two possibilities.  One is that you need a restraining order. The other is that you’re trying to get your problem fixed via the wrong route.

Lots of men do that.

They often call women liars in the process.

No-o e should be surprised by this, but judging by the evidence, no-one should believe it either. On the basis of the evidence, so far, Brooke looks more reliable.


This is no surprise.




3 comments on “Our contempt for those who court publicity

  1. everydaywhorephobia
    August 24, 2013

    Reblogged this on everyday whorephobia and commented:
    The attacks on Dr Brooke Magnanti by her ex reveal how easy it is attack any sex worker, after all who would trust the word of a whore?


  2. Michael Gillan Peckitt
    August 30, 2013

    What I don’t get is the newspapers that are printing the allegations of her ex, spent a lot of time trying to reveal ‘Belle’s’ identity. Now its sub judice the paper of course, can and should report the court proceedings, but conducting interviews with the guy seems wrong – some of these newspapers knew for fact that Dr, Magnanti = Belle long before anybody else did, it seems wrong to now cast doubt on a story they originally tried so hard to publish before Magananti did.


    • jemima2013
      August 30, 2013

      It is very odd, apparently the woman who wrote this story was the one Brooke spolit the scoop of, by outing herself before the Mail could, I think a lot can be read into that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: