MEADEN V BROOKS X WAR ENDS IN DRAW

Deborah Meaden has admitted that her eyes have been properly opened to the realities of cancel culture, after she rather sceptically asked for concrete examples just a few days ago.

The Dragons' Den investor sparked quite the online storm when she challenged GB News contributor Adam Brooks to name anyone in Britain who'd actually been cancelled, sacked, or even arrested simply for holding an opinion.

Her request unleashed a flood of replies. High-profile names and everyday people alike queued up to share their own bruising encounters with cancellation.

The original exchange has now been seen by hundreds of thousands, and it drew plenty of criticism for the way Ms Meaden initially handled the mountain of evidence piled in front of her.

Among the voices was Graham Linehan, co-creator of Father Ted, who explained how speaking up for women's rights in the trans debate cost him his career and a stage musical of the sitcom. Pool player Lynne Pinches, GB News regular Connie Shaw, and former Green Party deputy leader Shahrar Ali all chipped in with their own stories, along with many others.

At first, Ms Meaden thanked everyone for the examples and called the discussion helpful. But when she returned to X on Sunday, she owned up to framing her question badly. She'd been too focused, she said, on those who hide behind "free speech" to spew hate.

In one of her posts, she wrote that she was still working through the replies and had spotted some real horror stories. She explained that she'd started the conversation because she often sees free speech invoked to justify hate speech, which she can't abide, but the responses had brought some damning truths to light.

Swimmer Sharron Davies, who's had her own rough ride with cancel culture, thanked Ms Meaden for taking the time to listen. She pointed out how fighting for fair sport for girls had turned her own world upside down, given the undeniable role of biology.

Ms Meaden replied sympathetically, saying she'd read Sharron's book and admitted her original post was poor. She explained that her timeline is full of people defending awful things in the name of free speech, and she'd been fixated on that. But she was genuinely glad the debate had opened the door to things she knew and things she didn't. She hoped others following the thread felt the same, then signed off to walk the dogs and feed the animals.

To another user, she stressed that her question hadn't come from malice. She often asks for evidence, she said, because it helps her understand people's positions and lets her fact-check. She hadn't denied cancel culture exists, but she does believe free speech shouldn't be weaponised to silence legitimate concerns or harm society.

In a refreshing display of grace, Ms Meaden took full responsibility for her narrow view, and it earned her warm praise from several quarters, including Sharron Davies.

Even Adam Brooks, the man who'd sparked the whole thing, came back on Sunday to draw a polite line under their spat. He and Ms Meaden agreed that highlighting such an important issue to so many people had been worthwhile.

Free speech, they both concluded, needs protecting. People should be able to discuss tricky topics without fearing for their jobs or, in the extreme cases, their freedom.

It's rare to see an online row end with both sides tipping their hats to each other, but this one managed it rather nicely.