Thread by @JolyonMaugham

After tweeting about Nick Cohen and Guardian News and Media (GNM’s) attempts to discourage complaints from W1 and W2, I received a number of messages from other women wanting to talk about how life is at GNM. 🧵

I had never previously met any of the women who contacted me. They were motivated to get in touch by their experience that GNM cannot be trusted to investigate complaints and/or has actively sought to discourage them. And they want things to be better.

A few preliminary points.

(1) We made an offer to GNM which would have avoided the need for this thread and met our concerns. You can read it below. But it wasn’t accepted.

(2) We also turned down invitations to work with other media organisations - eg we had an offer from the Mail - because we wanted to ensure that their stories served *their* purposes: of putting pressure on management to improve handling of complaints around sexual misconduct.

(3) Before tweeting, I also reached out to a board member of the Scott Trust - which owns GNM - but received no reply.

Each of W1-W5 is someone I have communicated with *directly* about *their own* experiences at GNM. W1 and W2 tell of how they consider they were discouraged from pursuing complaints about Nick Cohen in this thread.

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1547218623919493122

W3, who had worked in other newsrooms at other major national newspapers, spoke of how, before she had joined the Guardian she had been warned about the culture but GNM was far worse than she had expected or experienced elsewhere.

She said she had a “grim time” working at GNM and “also went through an HR process which was an utter waste of time”. She got in touch because she “feels very bad that other people have continued to have a shitty time there.”

Another woman, W4, explained how, as a work experience student, she was asked to pose for pornographic photographs by a staff photographer. What she described was a highly developed modus operandi - by a man who showed her pornographic photos he had taken of other young women.

She complained fifteen years later, during the #MeToo movement. She found the process of making a complaint chaotic and discouraging but, linked to no longer working in the media, was able to persist. Following her complaint the photographer no longer works there.

She was informed (in writing) by GNM that she would not be told of the outcome. (This is also what W1 said she was told.) GNM said to me that “GNM’s grievance process results in an outcome letter, and a right of appeal”. But that is inconsistent with the written evidence.

W5 told me of how she had experienced bullying by a named senior executive. The name she gave me was the name of the same “senior executive” (see above) who W2 considered had also discouraged her from bringing a complaint.

So these are five direct, independent, reports from women who experienced the process for handling complaints about misconduct at GNM as poor and sometimes actively designed to discourage complaints (of which five related to male sexual misconduct).

Other women (and one man) beyond that five who work or worked at GNM gave corroborating accounts of the culture and spoken of that senior executive’s (mis)management of it. Two independently made the point that they believed the culture was tacitly approved at the highest levels.

There are a number of men implicated in allegations of bullying or sexual misconduct which appear to have been mismanaged by GNM. It is likely harm was done to junior female staff at GNM because men stayed in post due to a culture of discouraging or thwarting complaints.

My personal experience of negotiating with GNM, and its external lawyers, always closely with W1 and W2 and with their consent, has been poor and is consistent with the accounts that protecting women is not GNM’s primary consideration.

GNM’s lawyers, Baker McKenzie, have in private been highly critical of my conduct, accusing me of drawing “subjective and premature conclusions” and seeking to “publicly exploit” the issue for financial gain. They cite in evidence this tweet

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1547312895347785729

.

The senior executive I have been dealing with directly has accused me of “arbitrary cruelty” adding that “ if you have heard from people with grievances against the company then GNM really would like to hear from them.”

What these attacks miss is that the women who have contacted me, directly or via W2, chose to do so precisely because their consistent experience is that GNM cannot be trusted properly to investigate complaints - indeed has actively sought to discourage them.

On Monday, the Guardian carried this story (theguardian.com/media/2022/jul…) seemingly oblivious to the fact that so many women have raised concerns about bullying and sexual misconduct *at GNM* but have been discouraged from pursuing the complaint.

It's pretty clear that GNM should be focusing its attention closer to home. /ENDS

(Apols. This tweet should read "of which four related to male sexual misconduct)."

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1552705037696212992