believe me Will I am not getting off on this ridiculous interaction.

If people want to continue to make references to my sexuality in relation to a discussion about a newspaper that is said to exploit women's sexuality, and provide others with titillation when talking about sexual violence against women, I can only surmise that they have the same values and sexual mores as those people in The Sport who they are critiquing.

I don't want to speak for Steve Baxter here, but this doesn't make sense:

'This way of responding to readers' comments on a national publication blog is just not acceptable. '

He didn't respond to your comments on a national publication blog. He responded to comments you made on a blog, on Twitter, (and as far as i recall, the initial post didn't @ message you), which is his personal account, as opposed to on Twitter as a representative of the New Statesman. People are allowed to say what they like on Twitter (so long as its not a joke about airports...!). If he had written that on this blog, then I could understand why you'd say he was responding to readers' comment on a national publication blog, but he didn't.

Jennifer, that Daily Mail post on the Joanna Yeates murder was grotesque. I think Steve wrote about it, as did many other bloggers. One of my friends was approached by Liz Jones when he was sat in the Ram. It was so ghoulish. I don't think this article, by focussing on one tabloid monstrosity, is ignoring the fact that other newspapers aren't guilty of terrible writing, unpleasant politics and behaviour. Is anywhere 'clean' on Fleet Street? Judging by the continued rolling on of the hacking case, i doubt it very much!

sianushka you are splitting hairs in order to defend the indefensible.

i said and meant responding to comments by a reader on a national publication blog. His response was on twitter yes. My comments were on this blog.

You would not accept a man calling a woman a 'dozy little shit' if it was one of your 'sisters'. Your understanding of sisterhood and hateful language is very very selective.

I am emailing the editors now anyway.

Sianushka I respect you and enjoy your blog but you are a FEMINIST, defending MEN who, on social media but from their position as journalists have dragged the name of another woman blogger through the mud as a troll (and you have participated on Twitter) because she holds some diametrically opposite views and raised a controversial point here, AND brought her sexuality into it.

I wonder why they did not do this in the comments, why they chose to do so on Twitter where soemthing like a comment policy could not be moderated? That behaviour is disgusting and is a sickening display of the male privilege that runs RAMPANT in the journalistic community. Or didn't Mr. Baxter also celebrate or mark IWD this past month?

I'm not even a seasoned blogger but when I got some pretty stiff comments on my most recent blog post, you didn't see me running over to twitter to share my clever misogynist insights with the tweeting classes.

Neil- the 'clean world' does not exist. The whole world is full of grime.

Thanks for the critique I have emailed the NS and won't leave any more comments here.

No, sorry, i still don't get it. I don't think that what Will said was not providing titillation by talking about sexual violence.
But that's just my opinion. I was only asking the question where it was felt that that had happened. If that's what was meant then fine, but i don't agree with the statement.

I think the moderators, if there are any, should do something about the way commenters are speaking to me here.

Honestly. It is pathetic. Sometimes I think the New Statesman doesn't even understand how the internet even works. This kind of abuse by commenters on your blogs makes your paper look bad.

QRG,

There's very little moderation here, unfortunately.

If Steven Baxter wrote, "No, you dozy piece of shit, of course sex isn't dirty. Rape porn is, though. Clear? No, of course not. You trolling fuckwit." in any forum, then it's unprofessional.

Perhaps he should be banned for two matches like Wayne Rooney.

She didn't "come here for a fight"... she came her to make a reasonable, nuanced critique about the unreflective moralism and inherent hypocrisy and dividing papers into "good" and "bad". It's an excellent point, made with some subtlety and politely enough.

What on earth has "feminism" come to when it results in reasoned and informed critique (Elly has a PhD in feminist philosophy) being shouted down, in public, by nasty bullies?

I'd invite any readers of this thread to read Mr. Baxter's description of "trolling" in a previous column: http://bit.ly/dI4Nbl I wonder if anyone objectively reading how this sordid little tale unfurled would conclude if it was QRG's or Mr Baxter's behaviour which could best be described as follows:

"it's the feeling that people are trying to close down debate. They want to run the show. They want to derail any genuine arguments by turning everything around to what they want to talk about. Not such a big deal when it's a light-hearted comment, a throwaway insult or a bit of surrealist fun (which I heartily welcome, by the way); but not so much fun when it turns into ... downright nastiness."

"there's a suspicion – just a suspicion – that they don't want certain subjects to be discussed at all, except on their terms. It's hard to escape the sense that these people are trying to intimidate others from having their say and facing similar abuse."

I agree with Mr Baxter in thatm column, when he says "There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, of course. I like disagreeing, and I do it all the time. But when it becomes too aggressive, or too repetitive, it could discourage others from having their say, and I don't think that's fair. We should all be able to play nicely. Shouldn't we?"

I happen to think calling someone who suggests your broad-brush critiques are too stiff and not made with enough nuanced self-awareness a "dozy shit" is too aggressive. Don't you?

@Nell Rawlison

What she did was say... hey, hold on a minute, maybe the issue's a little bit more complicated than these rabble-rousing, simplistic types of column suggest? Maybe in the "good-nature" of taking the piss out of the Sport there lies a more difficult question of represntation and power which such "good-natured" articles miss? Maybe there's some problematic subtext about how even the supposedly liberal press reproduce and reinforce a purient attitude to sexuality and sexual behaviour that is ultimately damaging? Maybe in these types of (often justified) takedowns of easy targets, we're missing the bigger picture?

If comment forums on articles aren't for, well, commenting on them, what are they for? Circle-jerks of self-congratulation.

As Steve said in his trolling column, "there's a suspicion – just a suspicion – that they don't want certain subjects to be discussed at all, except on their terms. It's hard to escape the sense that these people are trying to intimidate others from having their say and facing similar abuse."

If anyone is "a troll, you are attention seeking, and you are vindictive", it's the people including Steven Baxter and David Allen Green who swear, belittle and abuse people from their privileged platforms, criticising their sexuality in the process. If that's not vindictive, I'm not sure where your boundaries lie.

What a lot of people don't know about The Sport is they used to report rape cases in a rather stomach churning fashion for the erotic entertainment of their readers.

Please stop feeding the quiet riot girl troll. You've already given this exhibitionist manipulator far too much attention. She blatantly distorted what the author said, whipped up a spurious grievance and then tried to intimidate other people in this thread. Just ignore the troll and she will go away.

Farewell ? to the 'Morning Star' ? !

I thought the Sport had died an ugly death about 15 years ago.

Better late than never.

Honestly? He describes himself as 'patrolling' the media. Come on. QRG raised a very relevant and context dependent issue and the response is unprofessional and absurd not to mention offensive.

Again, dragging ANYONE but especially a woman's sexuality into an academic argument is a disgustingly misogynist move and failing to oppose it when it's directed @ you and your friends is shocking behaviour.

You don't have to go looking on Twitter because this is the usual suspects on all sides. I'm not defending QRG's behaviour anywhere else, I don't stalk her posts and comments and that's a straw person for the issue of what Steven Baxter has actually done here. There is no speculating on what he said nor on its effect- which is negative and shuts down discussion. Whereas QRG did the very opposite and engaged with the piece.

If you tolerate or excuse behaviour like Steven's then shame on you.

iwas in the Sport few years go "Old man get camera stuck in ass" and for years coundlt hold my head up high down my local without ateenager trying to assault me wiht a pentax!!

In mild defence of the Sport, or at least one aspect of it, one reading of it was as a bizarre postmodern literary experiment. The best headline of all surely was WORLD WAR TWO BOMBER FOUND ON MOON VANISHES. You can almost hear the helpless giggles in the newsroom as they thought that one up.

On another note, was the Sport actually "Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper"? Does that little phrase still exist on the back page of papers any more? And what does it involve? Is there any quality control? Can we apply to have the Express, say, de-registered at the Post Office so that it can no longer call itself a newspaper?

I had stayed away from here for a while, but after getting an @ msg on twitter i thought i'd wander back, as i feel a bit like i need to defend myself?

It was immature of me and out of order to have made a snide comment about a commenter on this thread on Twitter. I apologise for that. And apologise to you QRG, it was a petty way to behave. Sometimes patience is frayed, you're having a bad day and you type without thinking when something silly like the internet annoys you.

A lot of fairly off key things have been written about me on Twitter too, and on comment threads, including speculation about my sexuality and accusing me of all sorts of things that aren't actually true, which i won't repeat here because i think it would be petty. But when that happens it stays with you, and you sometimes hit back later on and act in a way that you regret later, that isn't dignified. It doesn't excuse it though and therefore I apologise if my comments upset anyone.

I do still disagree that the article proposed sex was somehow dirty though. And i think that when people say something in a personal capacity on twitter, then it is separate to the debate on the blog. I'm sorry if that was misconstrued as me defending men against women, and i don't believe that i should defend a woman just because we're women if i disagree with her views.

I don't read or 'stalk' QRG's posts on twitter (i don't know if that comment was directed at me?) and i rarely read her blog although obviously we have interacted online before. We both have very different views on many different things. I think she has said some things about me in the past that have been unfair, and I am sure she thinks the same about me. That's what happens as bloggers - as i say, i'm sure she thinks the same about things i have written.

That's all i have to say really. Thanks.

I read today that the daily sport have made their 80 staff members redundant now. to get the topic back on topic...

The above post from 'quiet riot girl' would appear to be in response to a completely different article.

Mr Baxter expresses discomfort about sex crimes being reported for titillation, or about young women's genitals being papped and published without their consent and is pompously reminded that 'sex is not dirty'. Gobsmackingly daft.

@ sianushka no, it wasn't directed at anyone specific. People keep referring to her past posts and comments and I wanted to clarify my reasons for stepping into this stem from my knowledge of this instance and disagreement with what happened.

My favorite memory of the Daily Sport was on the day Diana died, their front page was an interview with the women who had 'THE HEAVIEST BREASTS IN ENGLAND!' and was under the header 'MY SEVEN STONE TITS WEIGH MORE THAN KYLIE'.

That's a special kind of trash journalism.

While you lot were all arguing between yourselves like the daft lefties you are, the Sunday Sport regrouped and is back on May 8.
Enjoy!

I appreciate everyone who has concurred with me though, that Baxter's comments on twitter, as a direct response to my comment here, were personal and aggressive. http://www.diyhomeideas.org/

It was only ever good for finding prostitutes

I hadn't seen The Sport for years so I assumed it had died.

Another recent surprise is that the Workers Revolutionary Party's Newsline is still going. I thought it has gone when the WRP split.