,
18 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
I wonder if the people with the power to make him Prime Minister are going to ask him for an explanation? Or will they look the other way? As they did for his racist comments, his thuggery, and his reckless commitment to his own progress: theguardian.com/politics/2019/…
The one thing that I fear about politics today is that I know people will put up with worse.
This is a good example of how to turn the other cheek: attack. Paint concern as being nosy, or something darker still. As though a man who wishes to be Prime Minister shouldn't have to explain himself.
Distraction via attack is part of the tactical response to this report. In this case, using her platform and status to call for targeted harassment.
Once again, without any expectation that a man seeking to be Prime Minister should explain himself.
Once again, without any expectation that a man seeking to be Prime Minister should explain himself.
Like everyone else, I have no idea what happened, and have no ability to condemn or exonerate based on the report. But he needs to explain himself.
Here, we have a distortion, again. Pretend that the neighbours didn't call the police first. Pretend they didn't go round to check on Carrie Symonds.
It is possible for something to be both an alleged harm and be in the public interest:
It is possible for something to be both an alleged harm and be in the public interest:
Here, a confident assertion that this was a vexatious report - a confidence that it isn't possible to have, so again, a distraction.
You don't need a WhatsApp group to coordinate like this. This is learned behaviour, across the political spectrum:
You don't need a WhatsApp group to coordinate like this. This is learned behaviour, across the political spectrum:
Reframing. The incident is not important, the conduct of the neighbours (and their politics) is.
If there is nothing to be concerned about, it would be easy for Boris Johnson to explain:
If there is nothing to be concerned about, it would be easy for Boris Johnson to explain:
I'm doing this not because each tweet is worth its own explanation, but because this sort of collective, tactical messaging is powerful, and should be seen as such.
Privacy. Deflect attention to the neighbours and their politics.
I have had cases where women could well have ended up dead if neighbours hadn't reported what they heard through the walls. But for The Spectator, protecting a buddy is a higher priority.
I have had cases where women could well have ended up dead if neighbours hadn't reported what they heard through the walls. But for The Spectator, protecting a buddy is a higher priority.
To repeat, I have no idea what happened. But neither do any of the people quoted, and their aggressive lack of curiosity is...well, just sad, really.
What it comes down to is that the worst could be true, and they would probably still want Boris Johnson as PM.
What it comes down to is that the worst could be true, and they would probably still want Boris Johnson as PM.
Onto the Mail on Sunday now, where all of the elements above are pulled together.
Notably, the pretty shameful implication that the couple wouldn't have called the police had they voted the same way in the referendum. Most projecting outwards there:
Notably, the pretty shameful implication that the couple wouldn't have called the police had they voted the same way in the referendum. Most projecting outwards there:
I mean, it's a classic piece of distraction. Get MoS readers to hate them because they have the means to live in a nice flat, while doing creative jobs. This is what everyone in the thread above was hoping for.
Throw in a quick morsel of "Brussels wasting money!" to raise the blood pressure, while you're at it.
Another one pretending to be fairness when it is about Boris Johnson's utility.
It doesn't matter whether someone is your political ally. You are either a person who would act in the interests of a potential victim, and the country, or not.
It doesn't matter whether someone is your political ally. You are either a person who would act in the interests of a potential victim, and the country, or not.
I think everyone in the thread above is ultimately saying that they will happily look the other way if they get a Prime Minister who is reckless enough to leave the EU without a deal. That's the common thread.
I wonder what else they would look away from?
I wonder what else they would look away from?
To quote The Simpsons:
"Let's destroy the observatory so that this never happens again!"
"Let's destroy the observatory so that this never happens again!"
Well, close enough:
