Jk rowling

That’s it, I’m out. I’m finished with the Epstein scandal. This morning I read about a man who is on the cusp of cancellation because he once sent a flirtatious email to Ghislaine Maxwell, years before her crimes were known about. This is getting ridiculous. It feels like MeToo on steroids. There’s a medieval vibe of finger-pointing and rumor-mongering The man is Casey Wasserman. He’s chair of the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics. And there are hollers for him to stand down. All because he once got digitally horny with Ms Maxwell. "I think of you all the time," he wrote in one email. "What do I have to do to see you in a tight leather outfit?" he asked. That’s it. A little bit of lame middle-aged wooing.

It seems that taking gratuitous swipes at J.K. Rowling has become something of a competition for liberal broadsheets on both sides of the pond. First, the New York Times took a potshot at the Harry Potter creator for its new marketing campaign trumpeting 'independent journalism.' And now the Guardian – keen to prove that, it too, is achingly right on – has published a piece which implies that Rowling's views on same-sex spaces are somehow more controversial than domestic abuse. Grim. The latest jibe at Britain's greatest living writer came in a piece detailing the controversies around the production of the Fantastic Beasts film.

Away from the scenes in eastern Europe, a very different terf war was playing out on Twitter yesterday between JK Rowling and former New Statesman journalist Laurie Penny. The latter is a consistent and very public critic of Rowling's views on sex and gender, having previously suggested the Harry Potter author is a transphobe for whom the label 'terf' – 'trans exclusionary radical feminist' – seems applicable. Penny, one of Tatler's top 100 'people who matter' in 2012, has been complaining bitterly that her latest literary offering has been panned by the critics.

It looks like the New York Times is at it again. In recent years, America's least-reliable news source has developed a strange view of Britain — or at least since the Brexit vote in 2016. In the NYT’s world, the UK is a desolate place, where locals huddle round bin fires on the streets of London, gnawing on legs of mutton and cavorting in swamps during the summer, ever fearful of the despot Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. Just last month the paper's international edition ran a front-page comment piece claiming the country would 'sleepwalk into tyranny' thanks to our 'ever more spiteful nationalism.'  Now though it seems the Brit-bashing has a new outlet: attacking this country's greatest living writer.

It's fair to say that J.K. Rowling's latest intervention has put the cat amongst the pigeons. The Harry Potter author criticised Police Scotland's new policy for trans suspects after the force confirmed it will record rapes by offenders with a penis as carried out by a woman if they identify as female, regardless of whether they have legally changed gender. Rowling's implicit criticism of this move – riffing on Orwell that: 'War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The Penised Individual Who Raped You Is a Woman' – has sparked a terrific backlash, with much of it seeming to come from angry, pompous middle-aged men.

I know from bitter experience that you don’t have to be a best-selling author to be hounded by the trans ideologues. You don’t have to be an evil witch to be cancelled by the spoiled kids you made famous. You don’t even have to say you think gender identity is a load of poppycock to be accused of transphobia. And yet, once again, J.K.Rowling has been targeted by trans activists. Her crime? To speak up for women's sex-based rights. The Harry Potter author has revealed that on Friday 'three activist actors' turned up on her doorstep. According to Rowling, the trio 'took pictures of themselves in front of our house, carefully positioning themselves to ensure that our address was visible'. The resulting photographs were then plastered across the internet.

The divide between the rich and the poor is obvious in Britain today. Whether in terms of income, geography or political outlook, the cleavage between the haves and have-nots widens conspicuously. It has become a source of much snobbery and resentment. But there is another field in which this division can be witnessed, yet all too often goes ignored: free speech. Increasingly, the freedom to express your political opinions has become the privilege of the rich, while the poor – or even those on middle incomes – now fear to say what they like. This is especially the case when it comes to talking about gender, race and Brexit.