What's really interesting[1] about that BBC piece is that it barely even claims to report *what happened*. Here's what the police said, here's what Johnson said, here's what Patel said, here's what Anneliese Dodds said when we will-you-condemn'ed her...
[1] As in "well, this is certainly an interesting present from the cat".
It's really debased as journalism, apart from anything else. What happened? Some stuff. Is it basically fine? Yes, it's basically fine. OK, so, who's saying what about it and how does it fit into the bigger picture[2]?
[2] As in, "you really need to keep up with _Love Island: Aftersun if you want to get the bigger picture".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On investigation it turns out that there is protocol around flying the Union Flag, and it is recommended that it not be flown at night (unless illuminated).
I've worked in an office that was also a social hub. We ate lunch in the canteen, we went to the pub together, there were clubs and societies and 5-a-side and a quiz league with proper prizes, and at Christmas there was a big do with presents all round and cheap booze.
You couldn't work from home back then, but you wouldn't want to (no chance of a cooked dinner for one thing). I had quite a long commute, and I was strongly encouraged to move house - not for work, but specifically so that I could take part in more of the social events.
But we don't do cooked lunches in the canteen now. We don't do social clubs and 5-a-side, we don't do on-site Christmas dos complete with presents, and basically we don't do large, securely-employed workforces.
Social media will only ever stop being a troll farm when there are costs to *not reining yourself in*.
Example: the Polemical Habitual Plural.
Mr Smith, your longterm political opponent, does something discreditable - or is credibly accused of doing something discreditable - on one occasion. Say he kills a rabbit - or is credibly accused of, etc. Say he's also been caught out in a lie (once).
Rein yourself in: "We know that Smith doesn't always tell the truth - and apparently he once killed a rabbit"
Let rip: "Smith, who lies and kills rabbits"
No, really, go mad: "What about all the lies Smith has told - and the rabbits he's killed?"
She told Gordon Brown the government was going to cut the winter fuel allowance, because her friends said so ("I talk to people my age and they say they’ll be knocking it off.")
He said they weren't going to cut it & mentioned free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions...
She said "How are you going to get us out of all this debt, Gordon?"
He said they had a plan. She got bored after a couple of sentences and interrupted him.
The offence of harassment* is unusual in that you can't do it just once; it's defined as 'a course of conduct'.
1/ *Slight simplification which doesn't affect the argument
@Glinner@WestYorksPolice But what is a course of conduct, and (more importantly) how do you make one stand up in court? You have to have dates and specifics - you show that an identifiable course of conduct began on date X, when the offender began the process of harassment by doing action Y.
2/
@Glinner@WestYorksPolice (Obviously this is highly artificial - a domestic abuser, for example, may have been harassing his victim for weeks or months prior to the start date you identify, in a whole variety of ways. But it's about making it actionable evidence.)
3/