An unfortunate series of ill-advised Tweets from the CEO of Scottish Book Trust

And the evidenced rebuttal by the poet he has been attempting to smear.

Until a few days ago I hadn't been aware that Marc Lambert, CEO of the Scottish Book Trust, even had a personal Twitter/ X account. I open with this pertinent point due to the nature of what has happened these last three days, when I discovered that not only did he have one, but that he used it to speak on behalf of the Scottish Book Trust itself.

So I was more than a little surprised when what I’m about to report kicked off and Mr Lambert on Twitter/X started making false and unevidenced accusations against me.

As well as aiming to promote reading and literacy, and they do excellent work in this, Scottish Book Trust (SBT) also administer the Live Literature Register – the only register of poets, authors and storytellers in Scotland. Based on that register they give substantial amounts of funding to schools, libraries, orgs etc to fund author visits, workshops and longer projects. They also administer the New Writers’ Bursaries.

The SBT’s Annual Budget seems to be approx £6.1 million for 2022- 2023, much of it from the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland (Scotland’s Arts Council). Marc Lambert as CEO is in charge of a staff of approx 70+ and has been in post for 22 years.

I have previously written about my strong disagreements with Scottish Book Trust’s compulsory Code of Conduct for authors, criticising both how it was presented and what I - and other authors - regarded as overreach impinging on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Artistic Expression as well as contributing to a Culture of Censure in Scotland.

So what has happened on X that has forced me - a poet, former Scottish Arts Council Creative Writing Fellow and Royal Literary Fund Fellow, former Reader in Residence of Glasgow Women’s Library and Glasgow’s Gallery of Modern Art, Patron of the Federation of Writers’ Scotland and Member of the Scottish Poetry Library’s Poets Advisory Group - to write this Substack? Bizarrely enough, a Tweet from Joanna Cherry on July 18th linking to a Times piece on the continuing issues with Literary Alliance Scotland (LAS). (I began writing this Substack on July 20th)

I wondered what information Joanna Cherry was supposed to have before she should comment on what was a pretty scandalous failure on the part of Literature Alliance Scotland (LAS), a failure that evidenced what many authors had been feeling for some time, namely that our publicly funded literary organisations were failing to grasp the unacceptable level of censure and anti-GC activism within the books and literary world. A failure deeply affecting the cultural climate in Scotland. Indeed just today there is a letter in the Observer, from the Freedom in the Arts organisation pointing out the following.

I’d seen the LAS’s full and welcome apology and admission of their error the day after my Substack which broke that story and I knew they’d taken steps to remove the offending document, but I had seen nothing else. Marc Lambert was at the time, and according to the LAS website still is, on the Board of Literature Alliance Scotland. Which is why I responded with the following:

I responded as follows. And was very surprised at both the tone and content of Marc Lambert’s replies to me. Not to mention the fact that his assertions are fabrications, hugely distorting what actually happened.

Okay. So let’s look at Marc’s allegations one by one and see what the truth is.

I would really rather pass over the “Loudest voices are the most ill-informed” comment, but given the climate in which this is happening and what happens later I can’t. It falls dangerously close and possibly fully into the category of a woman saying something in a reasonable voice and a man (with megatons of power in the books sector) accusing her of being too loud. But let’s move on.

‘If you wish to meet and talk about your very public and equally misinformed attitude to SBT, I can do that.'

An invite to meet? Fabulous. I did ask if we could. But uh-oh HE sets the agenda in advance, one that is hostile to me, so not an honest invite at all.

And yes, I would welcome hearing what he thinks I’ve said about Scottish Book Trust that is ‘equally misinformed’.

As for the reference to my attitude, it unfortunately sounds like something a father might say to a recalcitrant daughter.

And I sincerely believe that if there was ‘misinformation’ in anything I’ve said in my Substack piece of May 2022 he would have challenged and demanded correction long ago. Rather a time-lapse there from its publication to this accusation.

“Again this is not true and the record proves it.” refers to my initial attempt at corresponding with him re the Code of Conduct. The record proves no such thing.

So here’s the correspondence, starting with my initial email.

Now obviously I didn't write the above in a quick five minute dash. I’d been deeply troubled with this compulsory and updated version of the Code of Conduct, no longer aimed at authors and writers but at all those working for SBT, and extending in certain circumstances to speech and behaviour in the writer’s OWN TIME, rather than only on SBT business. The following is from the Code of Conduct I refused to sign.

I’d been pondering how to deal with this for some weeks. As had quite a number of other writers, who had already sent a joint letter to Marc Lambert expressing concerns. A number of authors let me know they had emailed him personally too.

And here’s the CEO’s response to my carefully thought through email.

Ah, so no responses to my specific questions.

Incidentally, he sent the exact email to my author husband, Ian, who had sent his own email about the Code of Conduct. So, what I received was a copy and paste one-size-fits all response. Did I feel listened to or heard? No. Did I get any assurances around Freedom of Speech, specifically for GC authors? No.

So my response to Marc’s reply.

And Marc’s reply to me. 53 minutes later.

So, no answers to any of my questions, no attempt at discussion with me at all.

A completely false claim that SBT has “now responded to a number of queries from you on this matter”. No apology for getting that egregiously wrong. And a brush off to go to the SBT Board Chair with two contact addresses neither of which would appear to be private or assure confidentiality.

If only he’d engaged with me a year and a half ago about my concerns re Freedom of Speech. But he didn’t. That is on him.

I am astounded that not only has he been dishonest about our initial email exchange (which he shut abruptly off) but that he accuses my actions of making subsequent discussions impossible.

And as for going to “every right-wing newspaper you could find”, let’s look at the truth of the matter.

Here’s my first contact with the Media. Completely unsolicited by me.

Right wing media? That might be a surprise to The Bookseller! https://www.thebookseller.com

This approach to me was closely followed by:

At a later date The Times got in touch.

And the feminist author Joan Smith wrote a piece in Unherd, The Scottish Book Trust Has Given Up On Free Speech.

People are quite rightly concerned about Free Speech, particularly for artists and authors. Indeed Chimanda Ngozi Adichie in Spring 2022 delivered the BBC Reith Lecture on that subject, her views chiming with my own concerns around the Code of Conduct. My intention was never to “defame” Scottish Book Trust, and I cannot see that I have done that. In fact, I’ve tried very hard to stick to the facts I know and the truth.

I even contacted one Christian news outlet and demanded they remove the sensationalist spin they had put on a headline to the Code of Conduct story, which in no way reflected what I had written anywhere, or my intentions.

I also responded to any comments I saw being derogatory at all about the work of the SBT on X, stating that they do invaluable work and for me this is all about Freedom of Speech for poets and authors, not about criticising the excellent work they do.

Of course, Marc Lambert knows none of this, but rather than fact-checking before tweeting he - a man with considerable power - makes up a false narrative that I went running to the right wing media and that my aim was to defame SBT.

I was never approached by The Guardian, which will be no surprise to anyone who knows anything at all about their well-documented bias against GC women, including top GC columnists Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman both of whom left their employment after struggling to be heard or listened to.

His right wing jibe is just that. A cheap jibe. After the initial article or two, all kinds of other dailies picked the story up and rehashed it.

And that deeply ironic last part of Marc Lambert’s tweet above.

Marc made it clear he was absolutely not interested or going to have a conversation with me in that initial email exchange. I do not believe that he ever intended anything approaching “a conversation” with me.

Lordy, Lordy. I do wish it wasn’t so, but Mr Lambert continued with his Tweets to and about me on July 20th and into July 21st.

Please, reader, if you’re still here, do go and grab a coffee, or a cup of camomile tea. Or possibly a whisky. I’m only writing this as the CEO of SBT has made so many serious allegations about me, on no evidence whatsoever. I need to ensure that the facts and truth of the matter are firmly on record. False narratives set up by bad faith actors absolutely need to be challenged or, as we know, they become the accepted version of events.

The next Tweet after the spurious claim that I’d made conversation impossible, is

Oh, where to start on this one? OK. Let’s look at what “trolled”means. I had a good idea and anyone who knows me or my husband, comic novelist, Ian Macpherson, on X/Twitter will be astounded by this claim. It is not and never has been in any way part of how we behave online. So here’s the Oxford Online Dictionary meaning of “trolled’.

And another from the Australian Government e-safety advice.

Well, I wonder whose very recent behaviour that might describe?

As I write we are in Day Three of Mr Lambert sending me provocative, fallacious and accusatory Tweets. And he is certainly causing some drama on X.

So, the facts. I have never been in contact with the Chair of SBT or tweeted or posted on SM about him. My husband has never Tweeted on X (his only SM) about any of this. He is a contender for the Most Minimalist Use of Social Media Award.

Mr Lambert seems to have difficulty understanding that two writers living in one household does not mean they are incapable of acting unilaterally.

Given that he conflates us both in his accusations (it was Ian who having finally secured a confidential address wrote to the Chair of the Board) I would remind him that as a woman I am entirely independent of my husband and in public life I should absolutely be treated as such.

Alas, there is more that needs addressed. You’re bound to have moved on to the whisky by now. Make it a double, and I’ll have one too please.

This screenshot below begins with my response to the “moral stand” comment.

Okay. I’ll start with the second last Tweet above.

I’ve already published above my full correspondence with Marc Lambert over the Code of Conduct. No false claims from me. And my Substack on the Code of Conduct has been public now for over a year and I know of no false claims there. If there are, perhaps Mr Lambert could outline them in an email, including anything he thinks I wrote to defame him or the SBT rather than trolling me on X/Twitter.

Relentlessly pushing to learn the identities of those at SBT responsible for making policy? OMG. Please do provide my constant and demanding requests for this hyperbolic claim. My whole correspondence with Marc Lambert on this is above. So no, not me.

I have never sent Mr Lambert or SBT any email that is not polite and civil.

I know men who sent emails re the Code of Conduct too. Could it be that there’s a very thin line between questioning and provocative in Marc Lambert’s mind? What on earth earned the two emails I sent him posted above the description “provocative”? Is it because I am committed to Free Speech and a healthy literature scene in Scotland? Or perhaps because I’m very concerned about the treatment of GC women writers and the Code of Conduct as drafted? Or both?

The marathon of this ‘setting the record straight’ thread is almost over. But I really can’t let this extraordinary (yes, yet another one) claim go.

This is a downright lie. I’m fed up with using the milder “untruth” form given that I have been lied about so often in these extraordinary Tweets by Mr Lambert. While remaining civil throughout.

I have checked the three essays the CEO might be referring to. The original one about my frustrations with the whole handling of the Code of Conduct on LoobyLo’s substack ends with

And my essay in The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht says:

I have never claimed online or in real life that I was ‘cancelled’ by Scottish Book Trust. That I have been cancelled in a whole lot of other ways by a sector of the Scottish poetry and literary world is fact.

It strikes me that poet and writer Jenny Lindsay is absolutely correct when yesterday, also being challenged on Twitter by Mr Lambert on one of the many offshoots of the original Joanna Cherry post, she tweeted.

I would also very much like him to apologise to me for making such a sustained, unevidenced and yes, “vile” attack on me on Twitter/X and impugning my good character with downright lies and accusations like “incivility'. I have been civil and polite throughout, I would also remind him of his organisations own aims which include:

I also respectfully refer Mr Lambert to the Industry Wide Statement on the Book and Publishing Industry’s Statement on Professional Standards, with particular reference to power imbalances and to Sections 2 & 3 & 5 & 8.

ADDENDUM

I wrote the above on Saturday 2Oth July. It is now Sunday 21st July and yet again this morning Mr Lambert has added to his diatribe against me. Overall I have tried not to respond on Twitter/X as I have a personal rule to avoid getting into tit-for-tats. Where I did respond yesterday it was to calmly and publicly rebut the worst of his unfounded accusations, to set the record straight.

So, Sunday.

Poet and author Jenny Lindsay, who has also suffered from cancellation on the Scottish literary scene and has documented this fully in her essay “Anatomy of a Hounding” responded to the above. and has written an entire book on the exact pattern of harms being experienced by all women in all sectors who are caught up in the gender wars (ie, all of them, but particularly the arts and academia), HOUNDED is forthcoming from Polity in October 2024

As Jenny says above, women like us are not dealing with any of this by choice. Our careers have not only taken financial hits, but have been severely hampered and even derailed by the amount of time and energy we have been expending to combat the toxicity we face.

Now, where is that whisky bottle. Ah! Kidding. I don’t drink whisky. So it will be the camomile tea for me them. Best make it a double.

ENDS

Two small notes.

1. I’ve done my best to check any figures and facts in this Substack are accurate. If I’ve got anything wrong please do let me know and I will amend.

2. The tweets above are not all the Tweets on the relevant Twitter/X threads posted in the past three days, but are those I most strongly felt needed addressed.