Thread on me & my take on Twittiquette / blocking for (new) followers - and trolls. 1/
I tweet mostly on politics (UK/international) & law.
Sometimes I tweet and RT a lot. Sometimes not at all.
I try to be explicit - to minimise “read between the lines” of my tweets.
But I also use GIFs.
RT/like ≠ agreement (unless you know I like you).
2/
I try and engage. If you tweet me the way you’d like to be tweeted at, you’re likely to get a (serious) response.
I realise it’s easy to misunderstand and be misunderstood here.
I aspire to patience/kindness. But also - I am so not perfect. 3/
I’m not Google. If you ask me a Q that Google/Wikipedia/Wiktionary answers, I may ignore you. 4/
If you want to know what I think about X, or why I think Y, ask me.
If you’re asking so you can wind-up or pile-on I will probably realise and *yawn* block you. 5/
If you disagree with me & want an argument, your best chance of getting one is to point to *words in my tweet* and *tell me why you disagree* with it. 6/
I can be really blunt. If I’m being blunt to you it’s because of how I’ve understood your tweets. 7/
I usually warn before I block someone based on their tweets at me. I realise we can misspeak & misunderstand.
If you want to be unblocked ask one of my mutuals to DM me. 8/
I delete/correct my tweets if I think they are unfair/misleading.
If I’ve said something wrong or unfair about *you*, tweet or DM me and tell me how it’s wrong. (NB, opinion statements about another’s political stance are different from factual claims about their behaviour. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Dawn Butler did the right thing. But so did the Speaker by suspending her from Parliament for calling Boris Johnson a liar - and not suspending Johnson. Let me explain (pls don’t reply unless you read the thread) 1/12
Democratic governance depends on debates and facts. But honest debate can’t be guaranteed. Rules and practice can only promote and encourage. 2/
A rule allowing the Speaker to suspend Johnson for his statements would make the Speaker the arbiter of political truths. It would pretend that they can be decided as if by an impartial judge. 3/
Why did @dAaronovitch agree to review - and celebrate - a book promoting the anti-trans movement, when he admits to knowing nothing about Bilek, the anti-semite celebrated by the anti-trans movement, who promotes the conspiracy theory of trans-humanism? Why didn’t he do his job?
On the same day Aaronovitch paraded his ignorance, the gender critical Proud Boys and QAnoners protested at Wi Spa, because a Christian activist invented a tale about a trans woman.
The anti-trans campaigners attacked a Guardian journalist. See thread.
From its creation in 1801 until 1962, the UK had no legal controls on free movement from the British colonies / empire to the UK, when *limited* controls were introduced 2/3
On 1 Jan 1973 UK ended this partial free movement for the colonies, and replaced it with free movement for the EEC. Until 30 Dec 2020. 3/3
Everyone granted leave to remain under UK’s EU Settlement Scheme is told by the Home Office that the “leave is issued in accordance with … the Withdrawal Agreement”. So is Colin right here? 1/
Law can be complex, but much complexity is avoidable, done by lawyers maybe well-meaning to “protect” clients from it / don’t want to use limited resources explaining. But egalitarian, public interest lawyering means making law comprehensible & accessible.
I know that very often my clients don’t think they will “get it”. But when I take time to explain it - they often do. Ofc, explaining may have to go beyond the law, to the motivations / biases of Gov decision-makers and judges. +
I spent time yesterday apologising to a client about how, a long time ago, when they were the partner of a client I didn’t take the time to make sure they understood the legal arguments we were making for them. +