Quick point about Vance and his ilk. Twitter and Parler perform different functions. Parler is for rallying the troops, discussing tactics, sharing information - and preaching to the choir. 1/n
Twitter is for the attacks. For the trolling and the intimidating - because Twitter has ‘the enemy’ on it, as well as the choir. You can always find places to preach to the choir.... 2/n
...but taking Twitter away takes away the opportunity to troll and to attack. That’s why being banned from Twitter matters - in a good and a bad way. 3/n
If the main way you use Twitter is to attack, you’re always at risk of being reported, suspended or banned. /ends
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few points about Starmer’s majority on a small vote share - and a comparison with Johnson’s situation in 2019. First thing to remember is that *as of this moment* it doesn’t matter how many votes they got, but how many seats. 1/7
That’s the problem with FPTP - a seat is a seat is a seat. In terms of governance, that means Starmer’s position is incredibly strong. He can basically do what he wants - just as Johnson could do whatever *he* wanted. 2/7
That i puts the emphasis on what Starmer actually does. There’s the rub. How did Johnson turn a massive majority into a crushing defeat? By governing abysmally. By being corrupt, incompetent and dishonest. He couldn’t fulfil his promises - because his promises were lies. 3/7
I have a little theory about Sunak. There are many reasons he’s in the mess he is, but one of them is his decision to go ahead with the Rwanda Scheme. He had a chance to step back from it, to abandon it. Instead he chose to push it. 1/4
He knew it was batshit. He knew it was unworkable. He just thought it would resonate with the nutters and the racists, and give him credibility with the far right. With the GBeebies audience, with the Braverman fans. 2/4
The trouble is, its failure to function was then on his hands. The nutters and racists still don’t like him, and its failure gave Farage (and Braverman) room on the right. The Overton Window is shifted, and the last remnant of Tory ‘competence’ is extinguished. 3/4
A few small points on ‘serious harm’, which was the crux of the Laurence Fox defamation actions. Firstly, the requirement for serious harm was added in the Defamation Act 2013 - the most recent reform of defamation law. 1/6
It was brought in specifically to make it harder to succeed in a defamation action. To stop trivial cases from succeeding. To help free speech. It adds an overall requirement before you even look at the words at issue. 2/6
The act says ‘A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.’ There are two parts to this. Is the harm ‘serious’, and did the statement ‘cause’ it. Both have to be shown *by the claimant* 3/6
A short and somewhat simplified thread on defamation law and the Laurence Fox case - and why it’s currently proceeding as it is. There are a number of key issues about the way the law works that need to be understood. 🧵 1/12
After Fox’s appearance on BBC’s Question Time in 2020, a number of people called him a racist on Twitter - and he responded by calling them paedophiles. They sued him for defamation for saying that, and he counter sued them for calling him a racist. 2/12
To count as defamatory, since the Defamation Act 2013, a statement has to cause ‘serious harm’ - which is why we’re hearing Fox describing all the jobs he’s lost as a result of being described as a racist. Significant loss of income would count as serious harm. 3/12
A question for @peston, @bbcnickrobinson, @bethrigby, @bbclauraK and other members of the ‘inner circle’ of political journalists. (Short thread) 1/6
As the COVID inquiry has gone on, it’s become increasingly evident that what was going on in Number 10 Downing Street was chaotic and disastrous in pretty much every way 2/6
What’s more, it’s clear that the chaos and disaster came from the top - and from the character and nature of Boris Johnson directly. You, and the rest of the inner circle clearly knew this - and knew his character and why this was inevitable. 3/6
Once upon a time there was a man who played golf rather well. He had a handicap of two. A golf club, exclusively for people with handicaps less than five, let him join. He was a bit of a tool: rude, boring, nasty about other members, but his game was good enough… 1/4
…and kept up the club’s standard well. After a few years, his standard declined - maybe it was the beer, maybe his age was catching up on him, maybe his sacking of his coach for being a foreigner, but for whatever reason his handicap went up and up. 2/4
And when the latest set of scorecards came in, his handicap was going to be ten. The club held a committee meeting - they regularly did - and his membership came up for review. He’d just had a particular bender and ranted about everything in a loud, angry voice… 3/4