'Sexist' Scientist Forced Out by Lying BBC 'Darling'

[Teddy Bear]

Most will be familiar with the story of the eminent British scientist, Sir Tim Hunt, who was hounded out of his positions as a result of a humorous remark he made on stage while addressing a group of around 100 mostly women science journalists. It appears most of them understood the humour behind his statement and had no pro9blem with it, but one woman in particular raised an uproar resulting in his having to resign his posts.

Now it appears the woman who created this havoc is less than honest about her own credentials. Being black and a woman though makes her useful for the BBC to present certain programmes, to show how PC they are, and naturally they mainly cover the sexist scientist story giving her full credence, as though it's natural to be offended by his humour, in line with the mindset typified by them.
So far despite the holes discovered in this woman's credentials as detailed below, the BBC have yet to make mention of it.

In my opinion the scientist should have stuck up for himself more and shown how ridiculous it was for anybody to take offence at what was a clear joking statement, instead of apologising for offence caused.

BRITISH NOBEL LAUREATE CRUCIFIED FOR SEXISM BY WOMAN WITH LITTLE CREDIBILITY

by WILLIAM BIGELOW

A British Nobel laureate, Sir Tim Hunt, 72, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on cell division, was forced out of honorary positions at University College London (UCL), the Royal Society, and the European Research Council (ERC) after a British academic named Connie St Louis, whose credibility is itself under fire, reported Hunt making sexist remarks in Seoul, South Korea.
The Daily Mail reported that Hunt was speaking to roughly a group of 100 science journalists, comprised primarily of women, when he said, according to Hunt, “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry.”

St Louis posted the quote on Twitter, prompting a world-wide barrage of invective targeting Hunt and also provoking the subsequent actions by the academic societies. Hunt, who called Hunt a “sexist speaker,” said Hunt boasted that he was a “male chauvinist.” She said Hunt stated that single-sex labs were better than mixed ones, while saying of Hunt, “Really, does this Nobel laureate think we are still in Victorian times?”

Hunt, returning from Seoul, could only defend himself by voicemail to Radio 4’s Today program, offering an apology for the “very stupid” comment, adding that he was “really, really sorry” to have “caused offence.” His wife, Professor Mary Collins, also a well-known scientist, said that Hunt became depressed, recalling, “‘Tim sat on the sofa and started crying. Then I started crying. We just held on to each other.”

But then a backlash from famous scientists roared back, led by eight other Nobel Prize winners and some female academics. Sir Andre Geim, the 2010 Nobel Prize winner in Physics who developed graphene, the world’s thinnest material, which may utterly change the world, said Hunt was being “crucified” by ideological fanatics. Some of the scientists surmised Hunt had been joking. All of the scientists told the UCL, the Royal Society and the ERC to reinstate him.

All three institutions said no, even though The Times reported that an anonymous EU official at the Seoul conference had quite a different account of what had transpired, The EU official stated that Hunt had been joking, even that he was a “chauvinist monster” he was before offering the ill-fated remarks and saying, “Now seriously . . .” then enthusing about the ‘”important role” women scientists play. The EU official averred that Hunt even said women should work in his field “despite monsters like me.” The EU official concluded, “I didn’t notice any uncomfortable silence or any awkwardness in the room as reported on social and then mainstream media.”

Meanwhile, St Louis told the Daily Mail that Hunt never said, “Now seriously.”

The Daily Mail conducted its own investigation of St Louis, showing her to have lied about details of her career, including a CV describing her as “an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist … She presents and produces a range of programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service . . . She writes for numerous outlets, including The Independent, Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, BBC On Air magazine and BBC Online.”

Yet, as the Daily Mail pointed out, digital archives for The Independent, Daily Mail, and The Sunday Times dating back 20 years show no by-lined articles by St Louis. St Louis confessed to the Daily Mail that it was “possible” she had never written for the newspaper, arguing that her articles for the Independent and Sunday Times may have been written more than 20 years ago, but when the Daily Mail asked how she could justify saying she wrote for the articles, she hung up the phone.

The City University web page states, “She is a recipient of the prestigious Joseph Rowntree Journalist Fellowship to write a book based on her acclaimed two-part Radio 4 documentary series, Raising Ham.” It is true in 2005, St Louis received £50,000 for the supposed book, but the book was never written. St Louis claimed, “I didn’t finish the Rowntree book I was writing because I had breast cancer and was extremely ill for a year. Then, after that, I had to work to look after my family. It doesn [sic] take away the fact that I won it [the £50,000] and still hope to finish the book does it?”

The online CV for St Louis claims that she had published three articles in academic journals, but the truth is that two of the three are the same.

In her CV presented to become a board member of the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ), St Louis claimed, “In November 2002, I was invited and subsequently appointed by the Minister responsible for media, sport and culture to be a board member of UK Sport (the former UK Sports Council) . . . My term of office ended last year but I continue to serve on the audit committee as an external member.”

One problem: a spokesman for UK Sport said St Louis was appointed to the board in November 2002 but she was gone by 2005.

Dame Valerie Beral, a famous scientist who is the principal investigator for the Million Women Study on the effect of women’s lifestyle on health, responded to the Daily Mail’s revelations by saying, “I think the institutions who have forced Tim to resign now need to look at the claims that this person has made in the past, and work out whether they can trust what she says regarding this incident. If her previous claims turn out to be false, then I believe that Tim must be re-instated.”

[Teddy Bear]

Another Brietbart article on this topic just appeared where it seems the author agrees too with my estimation.

IS THE MEDIA SILENT ON TIM HUNT ACCUSER CONNIE ST LOUIS’S LIES BECAUSE OF HER ‘BLACK PRIVILEGE’?

by MILO YIANNOPOULOS

It’s terrible that by mere accident of birth, some people are afforded benefits and opportunities that are denied to others.

That’s why I think Connie St Louis, the black female journalism professor whose malicious slander led to the virtual destruction of a Nobel Laureate’s career, needs to urgently check her privilege. Because unlike most people in the country, it seems she can get away with murder, thanks to her gender and, yes, her skin colour.

St Louis is responsible for the sacking of Sir Tim Hunt, a Nobel prize-winning biochemist who became the target of an online lynch mob after his comments about women in science were taken out of context.

St Louis claimed, and continues to claim, that Hunt had argued for single-sex laboratories after claiming that women in science were a distraction who “fall in love” with male scientists and “cry” when criticised.

St Louis, eager to combat damaging stereotypes, immediately went off crying to the media.

But a report from an anonymous EU official who attended Hunt’s talk told the Times last week that his comments were clearly made to poke fun at himself and that, after making them, Hunt went on to talk at length about the importance of women in science.

As Richard Dawkins, one of Hunt’s most prominent defenders, says, St Louis’ story made Hunt look like a chauvinist monster. But the full story shows him to be the precise opposite. What has happened to him is therefore nothing short of an international scandal.

There are elements of Rolling Stone in this debacle, not only in the way narrative has been prioritised over fact-checking, but also in the fabulism of Hunt’s accuser. Because, according to an explosive report by the Daily Mail, St Louis is a serial liar and fraud who has fabricated most of her own CV.

Her online resume describes her as an “award winning freelance broadcaster, writer, and scientist” who “presents and produces a range of programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service” and “writes for numerous outlets, including the Independent, the Daily Mail, the Guardian and the Sunday Times.”

But, according to the Mail‘s investigation, St Louis has no bylined works in either the Mail, the Independent or the Sunday Times. Prior to the Tim Hunt affair, she had only written one article for the Guardian, in 2013.

Her CV also boasts of a Joseph Rowntree fellowship which she received to write and publish a book. But she received the fellowship in 2005, and ten years later has yet to produce a completed work.

St Louis is currently a professor of science journalism at City University — that much is true. But if I were one of her students, I’d be demanding my money back. St Louis has lied about her CV, and she has lied about Tim Hunt.

Anyone else would be fired on the spot.

But let’s face it, it ain’t gonna happen. St Louis is a black woman. A black woman in science journalism, no less. There’s no way the Guardian or the BBC would allow anything bad to happen to such a rare and valuable person. That’s probably why they aren’t planning to follow up on the Mail‘s story.

Indeed, so important is St Louis to the Guardian that the Mail reports that Guardian editors made over 30 edits to her article on their website, in which she defended her conduct. The article was not updated with a disclaimer making note of these changes, in contravention of normal Guardian policy.

There’s a word for these double standards: privilege.

Yes, contrary to what a rainbow-haired Tumblr blogger may have screamed at you over social media, it’s not white males who need to check their privilege today, but minorities in positions of influence like Connie St Louis, who seem to think they can lie about themselves and others with impunity in pursuit of some noble higher goal.

In this case, as so often, that higher goal was delivering a good kicking to a much more successful man.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if it were Sir Tim Hunt or some other villified white male who had engaged in the kind of CV-spinning that St Louis did, the BBC and the Guardian would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Evidence of this double standard is everywhere. Just look at Bahar Mustafa, the delightful “diversity officer” of Goldsmiths University who hosted events that banned white men, repeatedly said she wanted to “kill white men,” labelled people “white trash” — and then claimed she couldn’t be racist, because she’s an ethnic minority.

There’s someone who knows how to use their privilege, baby.

Mustafa still has her job, by the way. (It’s taxpayer-funded, of course.) After all, we can afford to lose scientists like Sir Tim Hunt, can’t we? He wasn’t doing anything important, just trying to cure cancer. Openly racist “diversity officers” like Mustafa though, they’re the people we can’t afford to lose.

It’s easy to laugh, but the privilege of minorities in modern Britain has real consequences. In Rotherham, the abuses of Pakistani grooming gangs were ignored for years because officials in the town were afraid of offending minorities or appearing “racist.”

Even the official report acknowledged the part played by “misplaced political correctness” in the horrific episode. But the underlying problem was not addressed.

And it won’t be. As I write, it’s Monday afternoon, and there is still no glimmer of a story on the Connie St Louis CV revelations from the BBC, Guardian, or Independent.

Why? Because these Lefty (alright, closet Lefty in the case of the BBC) news outlets have imported the bad habits of the American Left, in particular their hare-brained identity politics.

No doubt, editors at these publications believe that attacking Tim Hunt is righteously “punching up” at the privileged, whereas exposing St Louis’ wrongdoing would be “punching down” at the underprivileged. What a world.

[Teddy Bear]

Oh the hypocrisy!
Jonathan Dimbleby complains about the very forces he has given his life to help create.
They don't like it 'up 'em'.

Dimbleby wades into row over 'sexist' professor: BBC presenter says he was 'appalled' at way Sir Tim Hunt was treated and says university bowed to 'intimidation'

• Jonathan Dimbleby accuse UCL of 'silencing' scientist Sir Tim Hunt
• Sir Tim was made to resign after a sexist joke about women in science
  
• Dimbleby said he was 'appalled' that Sir Tim had been forced out by UCL

By Katherine Rushton, Media And Technology Editor For The Daily Mail

Jonathan Dimbleby has launched an attack on the university that ousted scientist Sir Tim Hunt over his ‘feeble’ joke about women in laboratories.

The BBC presenter said he was ‘appalled’ by the way University College London treated the Nobel Prize winner, and accused the institution of bowing down to ‘intimidation’ by closed-minded students.

‘Too often university authorities are supine in the face of student intimidation. And it is intimidation,’ he said.

‘The scientist Tim Hunt was silenced by his university after he joked somewhat feebly that girls shouldn’t work with men in the laboratory because they fall in love and cry when criticised... Like a good number of the university’s alumni, I was appalled.’

Mr Dimbleby – who is himself a former UCL student – said he was so shocked by UCL’s decision to oust him that he had ‘taken the painful step of disowning’ his own honorary fellowship at the university.

Sir Tim, who is married to the eminent scientist Mary Collins, sparked controversy in June when he said that women distracted men in laboratories.

In an ill-advised joke to the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea, he said: ‘Let me tell you about my trouble with girls.

‘Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry.’

But although the remarks appear to have been a joke, the 72-year old was roundly criticised by his female colleagues, and sparked an online backlash from female scientists.

Many of them uploaded pictures of themselves kitted out in lab coats, filter masks or bulky boiler suits, accompanied by the hashtag #DistractinglySexy.

Sir Tim, who won the Nobel Prize in 2001 for his work on cell division, tried to mitigate the damage by apologising for the ‘light-hearted’ and ‘ironic’ remarks.

But his attempt to make amends backfired when he added that he was ‘only trying to be honest’.

UCL contacted Sir Tim’s wife, who is a UCL professor, insisting that he had to resign or face be sacked. The father of two obliged and emailed his resignation.

Criticising Sir Tim’s treatment by the university, Mr Dimbleby said he found something ‘peculiarly ugly about young minds so closed to alternative views that they block their ears and intimidate others into silence’.

However, the host of Radio 4’s Any Questions? programme did not reserve his condemnation exclusively for Sir Tim’s antagonists.

In a speech on freedom of expression published yesterday (Mon) and due to be delivered at the Prix Italia broadcasting awards in Turin tonight (Tue), the presenter also raises fears about online trolls and cyber-bullying.

He warned that criticism on social media quickly spirals into ‘witch hunts’ which are designed to ‘destroy’ people, and leave users ‘imprisoned’.

‘The revolution in global communications offers freedoms unimaginable until very recently. Online you can discover and learn, entertain and inspire. It is in almost every way a liberation for us all. Almost,’ he said.

‘You can also babble with impunity. Under the cloak of anonymity, you can express the ugliest of sentiments: you can join a witch-hunt to destroy a reputation of to assassinate a character. We are thus liberated and simultaneously imprisoned by social media.’