I’ve had some criticism for publishing this man’s picture. As I’ve had with similar stories. Apparently, reporting on someone’s publicly stated views and activities is now considered ‘outing’ them. But these men have already ‘outed’ themselves. They’ve published their own names, photographs and details of their activities online. For anyone to see. And when information about their profession or place of work is also publicly available, it hardly takes a detective to join the dots. I haven’t gone digging into their private lives or uncovered some great secret. I’ve reported information they’ve chosen to make public. But here’s the more important point. These are stories of legitimate public interest. In this case, a man publicly announced plans to organise a group to turn up at a parkrun event to give people he calls ‘transphobes’ a fright. In other words, to give women campaigning for fairness in female sport a fright. I recognise he may not be aware that many of these women have already experienced abuse, threats and intimidation. But that doesn’t make his plans any less newsworthy. I also understand this man is employed as a science teacher. Which, if correct, raises further questions about his judgement. As a journalist, my job is to report the facts accurately and give people the opportunity to respond. He was offered the chance to comment. He didn’t take it. Suggesting that legitimate public-interest reporting is somehow unethical is just another way of trying to silence journalists. Are we supposed to anonymise people who have already publicly identified themselves to protect their ‘feelings’? Or simply not report the story? This is how you create a chilling effect on journalism. And that should concern anyone who believes in a free press. The purpose of journalism isn’t to protect people from scrutiny. It’s to report matters of public interest - even when the people involved would rather we didn’t. That’s how a free press works. Read story below 👇

Today I learned about the All Souls examination, which is reputed to be the hardest exam in the world. To even be considered, you need to have a degree from, or be a current graduate student of Oxford. Hundreds of people sit and only two people pass every year. Attached is last year's general exam. Before I saw it, I wondered, how hard could it be. Well, it turns out…it's "Defend ghosting.", "Does a pope matter?", and "Is body language a language?" hard:

Thinking Allowed is such an unusual and important programme. A real tragedy that it’ll be coming to an end. There’s a wonder archive of previous programmes

Even in the playground I preferred Harold Wilson to Ted Heath. But as an u/g I was never ever tempted to join the CPGB, SWP, RCP, Spartacist League etc. Even as an 18 year old it was obvious to me that apart from a few naifs they were full of weirdos, gobshites and chancers.

At Caius College, Cambridge, attendance of these 1.5 hour-long inclusivity training sessions is mandatory for all undergrads. The sessions will be delivered by Stop Hate UK, who erroneously state that "gender identity" is a protected characteristic and that "Islamophobia is a crime." One would hope these are honest mistakes and they will be correcting them @stophateuk It will be interesting to hear what they have to say about the hate myself and others experienced at Cambridge for having the temerity to join a society for women that excludes men. Their website talks a lot about The Law and they seem to be very much in favour of the crime of Hate as a category: the word itself is menacingly capitalised throughout their material with the ominous implication that the violence or harassment ordinarily necessary for hatred to constitute a Hate Crime is somehow superfluous, and that simply Hating silently in your head should be sufficient. I wonder if they like the law so much when it comes to the protected characteristic of belief in the binary nature of sex and the Supreme Court judgment clarifying that sex in law means biological sex. We shall soon find out. In any case, by bringing them in and mandating attendance, Caius College is at best tacitly endorsing this ideological pressuring of students into being firmly on the woke side of a culture war they are determined not to wade out of, even given recent events. Training will of course include American rubbish about unconscious bias, microaggressions and how to be an Upstander against heteronormative hypermasculinity. No doubt some administrator has looked over this charity and their session descriptions and decided there's nothing at all controversial here, nothing political, just kindness.

What is your proposed compromise solution here? Alluding to the need for compromise on both sides rings a little hollow if you are not, at the same time, able to propose what that compromise might look like. With some issues, there is simply no room for compromise. A space is either single-sex or it is not single-sex. I struggle to see the room for compromise there. However, if you see some space that I don’t see, I am more than happy to listen to you sharing what that compromise would look like in practice.

Meet Hilary Cremin: the Cambridge Professor of Education (yes, the one who appointed Jason Arday) who wants to abolish all secondary schools because they're "fascist", among other mad ideas, says Dr Nicholas Tate. dailysceptic.org/2026/09/17/…