We’ve had an amazing response to our article debunking Cathy Newman’s spin on alleged Twitter threats, in which we showed fans of Newman had sent 30 times more violent and sexist abuse to Peterson than vice-versa. The article is already the most viewed article on this site with 84K views in two days and our work was the basis of an article by Paul Joseph Watson on Infowars.com. Further exposure came thanks to Milo Yiannopoulos who read out much of the article word for word on his new Youtube show and Jordan Peterson himself even kindly tweeted a link to our research. Finally, on Tuesday, James Delingpole wrote about our research in his third Breitbart article on the Peterson/Newman fiasco. Such was the popularity of our initial piece, it would be rude not to produce a follow-up investigation and to detail the fall-out from our expose.

While many of the Tweets we highlighted are still visible, user RJonesUX’s “die in a fire” contribution has been removed. He’s also posted a number of apologetic tweets, yet still isn’t being entirely honest about the matter, stating “I deleted it about an hour after I posted it.” We know this statement to be untrue because the Tweet was posted on the 19th January 2018 at 10.07PM and we archived it over 48 hours later! He goes on to say “I don’t appear to be trying to wriggle out of it” and even claims to have deleted the content before reading our article. Now, we can’t disprove this second claim, but what’s being claimed is that he deleted a two-day old tweet after having second thoughts, and the fact that 100K+ people were reading it on that very same day was a sheer coincidence and had no bearing the decision…

Although astonishing hypocritical, the above tweet really wasn’t the worst of the bunch – it wasn’t sexist, it didn’t threaten any individual nor did RJonesUX indicate he’d been the one who’d inflict violence onto another party. The worst tweets were of course by former Guardian journalist Kate Bevan, and just like her sexist and violent tweets, her subsequent behaviour afterwards continues to be the worst of the bunch too.

Bevan certainly seems to enjoy contradicting herself. One one hand she uses the line “very stable genius” in her Twitter name and she also claims to be available for “expert comment on tech, social media, data security”. Yet this “very stable” social media expert goes round sending sexist and violence supporting tweets, and follows these up with a clarification confirming she would have indeed punch Peterson herself. Looking through her Twitter timeline there appears to be at least one further reference to punching male figures, in November of 2017.

Unlike RJonesUX, “social media expert” Bevan didn’t apologise for her conduct, and instead mocked those calling out her behaviour, and then engaged in a blocking spree. After this failed, she then decided to protect her tweets so only her followers can view them.

The issue with Bevan’s behaviour isn’t simply her sexism and violent tweets, but it’s the context too. She expressed a desire to punch an individual for winning a debate in a TV studio, and a significant component of her career is to visit TV studios so she can engage in discussions and debates – i.e. the very locations and situations where she wishes to commit sexist violence. To emphasise this point, we’ve now uncovered a 2014 TV appearance of Bevan’s – not at some random local TV station, or the BBC, ITV etc, but actually at Channel 4, in the very same studio where the Peterson-Newman debate occurred:

Note the identical TV in the studio and the identical backdrop, in fact Bevan is seated in almost the exact same spot as Peterson!

Some readers might be thinking that Bevan’s sexism is a one-off, but again that couldn’t be further from the truth. A pinned Tweet at the top of her Twitter account aimed the following sexist message at men:

The tweet in question was written back in November and displays not merely sexism, but obvious contempt for anyone (male) disproving the things she says. Even better proof of Bevan’s sexism was her shameful support for Google’s sexist and politically motivated firing of James Damore. Daniel Frampton wrote the following about her conduct in an article on the Conservative Woman website:

“The broadcaster Kate Bevan, whose commentary on the memo was featured on the BBC website, also mischaracterised Damore’s communication to a shameful degree, claiming that the Google employee wrote that a large number of his female colleagues at Google were not good enough for the job. ‘The best engineers are not necessarily male’, she comments. This is obviously true. Yet Damore’s memo does not actually contradict this point. Either Bevan has not read the memo or she has wilfully misconstrued its general thesis for the sake of inciting a furore founded on fake news. But why should she do this? The answer is very simple. Bevan, like so many others, must generate a comprehensive culture of calculated outrage in order to delegitimise valid arguments that, if proven to be true, present an existential threat to the Left’s own worldview. Bevan declares that ‘I’m not very keen on the mob going for people to get the sack… but in this case he was acting in a way that was detrimental to his colleagues’. In other words, she is in all in favour of free speech, but in this case, because Damore’s memo opposes her own feminist ideology, we should throw him to the mob. Her entire claim, so typical of the Left, has been designed to justify a cosy bigotry couched in supposed tolerance of diversity; that is to say, every diversity apart from the only diversity that really matters, which is a diversity of opinion. Diversity has essentially been weaponised in order to silence dissent.”

Further evidence of Bevan supporting unethical and mob-like behaviours was exposed by Mike Cernovich, who uncovered comments made under her Guardian username “blossiekins“. In discussions under an article about trolls she endorses the idea of using false anecdotes to defame people’s character in order to hurt them financially. Her preferred mediums for this tactic being spaces “they dont’ control” such as Twitter and even the Guardian’s Comment is Free website!

Hopefully Bevan’s latest comments about Peterson are finally forcing people to wake-up and realise what a thoroughly unpleasant and sexist individual she is. She recently worked for Sophos, and they’ve distanced themselves from her and thanked those bringing her comments to their attention, stating:

“Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Please note that she is not a current employee of Sophos, and hasn’t been for the last few months.”

In particular, these latest developments are potentially very embarrassing for Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy who has tweeted extensively condemning abuse relating to the debate (only really concerned for Newman of course), but who now finds himself in the position of having previously featured the most prominent offender on his own show!

Given their claimed concern for the security of staff, one has to wonder what Channel 4 (and their security experts) will have to say about the matter and whether Bevan will be allowed into their studios in future?