BARELY pausing for breath, controversial broadcaster Julia Hartley-Brewer has defended herself against accusations she sided with rape and human trafficking accused Andrew Tate in a Twitter beef with Greta Thunberg.
Hartley-Brewer wants you to know that in no way did she “side” with Tate – who rang in the new year from a Romanian jail charged with a string of offences – despite backing the influencer after he hit out at Thunberg on social media.
In the kind of anaerobic performance rarely seen outside of a 100m Olympic sprint, she told the handful of viewers who actually tune in to TalkTV that she was not a fan of Tate’s.
Watch the full thing
"Andrew Tate is quite clearly a nasty piece of misogynistic work!"
— TalkTV (@TalkTV) January 3, 2023
Julia hits out at the controversial influencer after his Twitter spat with Greta Thunberg - and criticism of HER tweets about them both. @JuliaHB1 | @Tom_Slater_ pic.twitter.com/8UzI7fjQoP
It comes after she backed him in a spat with the 19-year-old climate activist before the new year, saying she would take Tate’s lifestyle (pre-arrest, presumably) over that of a “half-educated, autistic, doom-mongering eco-cultist”.
READ MORE: Greta Thunberg's perfect tweet KOs Andrew Tate after arrest in Romania
She deleted the tweet after others took her use of the word “autistic” as an insult, because it was included in a list of other insults.
Hartley-Brewer then reposted her witless response to Thunberg – which remains live on her account, incredibly – without the word autism in the list of attributes.
On her TalkTV show on Tuesday Hartley-Brewer discussed the main topics of the day, such as a week-old tweet she had made about a rape-accused influencer.
Her rant in full
She said: “Lots of tweets saying I should be sacked but what I loved was people saying, ‘You’re taking the side of your hero Andrew Tate.’
“Um, A) a man I don’t think I’ve ever tweeted about, ever spoken about on air. Of course, I’ve heard of him, I didn’t know the full horrors of the things he was … because I don’t take any interest … he’s just a sort of malign sort of influencer figure, I don’t have any interest in Kim Kardashian, either and he’s a nasty piece of work.
“Do I think that women should go anywhere near him? No, I think he’s horrible – I don’t have any interest in him, though.
“But I thought Greta’s response to him was really tacky and I thought rather beneath her.
“And again, what’s funny is that, [indecipherable] ‘why did you, why did you say autistic?’
“I said, ‘well actually I deleted that because I realised it was being taken … and I genuinely did not mean … I don’t think saying someone’s autistic, if you’re genuinely autistic, if you’re saying someone who’s not autistic is autistic and using it as an insult then that is, that is being derogatory and [indecipherable] offensive.
“She is autistic, she’s proudly autistic, she’s talked about it being her gift and being indeed her superpower and indeed it was her mental health problems as well as being autistic as she was later diagnosed, which her parents sort of felt her eco-fanaticism and these school strikes and the like, was her route out of, you know she had these sort of, she had an eating disorder, she was a selective mute.
READ MORE: Edinburgh mosque evacuated as bomb disposal unit attend 'suspicious bags'
"She had many, many, many issues I mean really, really, very troubled little girl as she was then. She’s now a young woman at the age of 19 and so she uses the word autistic as the first describer of herself in her [Twitter] biog, proudly.
“So I, I genuinely … I mean genuinely, you’ve met me, if I had a history of using this as an insult … It would be all over Twitter, I’d have done it a million times. I don’t because I don’t do things like that.
“But I realised it was, ‘ah look, it’s been taken the wrong way, I can see how it has been, so I deleted it.
“But then you have people saying ‘why did you delete it’ even though I’d flagged up that I’d deleted this tweet I wasn’t trying to hide it. But if I hadn’t deleted it, people would’ve said should delete it. You’re in this no-win situation aren’t you?”
It appeared she was supposed to be interviewing Spiked Online editor Tom Slater, if she’d given him a word in edgeways to talk about literally anything other than her own Twitter gaffe.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel