Associations

[SEEN in Journalism @JournalismSEEN]

Quite extraordinary to see this right of reply request from a Guardian journalist.

A right of reply is supposed to give the subject of an article a fair opportunity to respond to the key allegations or evidence before publication.

This request appears to do something rather different. Rather than simply setting out the issues to be answered, it seems to adopt an ideological position within the request itself.

Whatever your views on the subject matter, this falls short of basic standards of ethical journalism.

[Associations @Associations123]

@aswren You don't get it. We got to give money to a foreign country and not deport an immigrant, it's win, win.

[Associations @Associations123]

@jessesingal What do you mean? Antiwokists seem to have been consistently annoyed by the same features of TO throughout. What has changed about the facts or their response?

[Associations @Associations123]

@jonsopel It's embarrassing that someone who purports to be a political commentator could write that. That's not what "the establishment" means.

[Associations @Associations123]

@idyllicmusing This is fine, because all my goals are oriented to helping my cat.

[Alastair Hilton @London_W4]

I’m home now. Rick Rowe, the Green Party candidate has been given my personal information by the police. He let it slip tonight, when he deliberately came to the Chiswick pub that he sent the police to who acted on his orders (see my previous video). If I do not post on here in the morning, it means that the police have again acted on the orders of a Green Party candidate and have arrested me. I hope that I am able to post tomorrow morning, but seriously, please kick up a fuss with whoever you can if you don’t see a post from me by 9am British time. Really appreciate your support in these difficult times. Thank you.

[Associations @Associations123]

@OrganBuxtehude @robinhanson My (least) favourite is the constant:
Me: "A"
Opus: "I need to push back on that. Here's the reframe that changes everything: A"

[BanksyCat @Banksycat]

A raped child in this country knocked on SIX doors for help. The police. The social workers. The prosecutors. The council. The mayor. The government. Every single one SLAMMED in her face.

Nearly every one of those doors belongs to the people running Britain right now.

Today @carlalockhart asked Keir Starmer to make sure the inquiry finally lets the truth out. She was asking the man who sat at the top of the system that buried it.

Because when Starmer talks about institutions that looked the other way, he wasn't watching it happen. He was RUNNING one.

Picture one girl. Just one. Being raped by a gang, trying to be heard. Watch every door she knocks on, and watch who's behind it.

The police. They don't record it. They call her a nuisance, a troublemaker, a girl making a lifestyle choice. In some towns, officers are now accused of abusing girls themselves. Door one. SLAMMED.

The social workers. They see her too. In Rochdale, a youth worker made over 100 referrals about girls being abused. She was ignored. The girls were written off as making lifestyle choices, a problem to file away, not children to save. Door two. Locked.

The prosecutors. In Rochdale, 2009, the CPS dropped her case. Not a credible witness, they said. The men walked free, convicted only years later once someone else overturned it. That service was run, at the top, by Keir Starmer, 2008 to 2013. He later admitted the ethnicity of the abusers had played a role in how those cases were handled. Door three. Shut.

The council. In Rotherham, where 1,400 children were raped and trafficked, the council was his party's. 57 of 63 seats. In denial. Not fit for purpose. It tried to gag a journalist. An inspector found a case file with the word Pakistani tippexed out, so nobody could see the pattern. Door four. Bolted.

The mayor. In Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham commissioned a review. The Rochdale whistleblower Maggie Oliver called it a whitewash and walked away, saying survivors were silenced. Door five. Closed.

The government. When Oldham begged for a national inquiry, minister Jess Phillips refused it. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper waved it off, we'd already had one and Starmer resisted a statutory inquiry until an audit forced his hand, announcing it two days before the report landed. Only when cornered. Door six. Slammed in her face.

Now see it for what it is.

Not one failure. A WALL. Six locked doors, one after another, built around a child so she could never get out.

They ask why the girls didn't just speak up. They did. Over and over. This is why so few were ever heard. Not because they stayed silent. Because every door they knocked on was locked from the other side.

It wasn't one town. That same wall stood across 149 local authority areas. 149.

Here's the part that should stop you cold. Not one of the people behind those doors was punished. Every single one was promoted.

Starmer ran the prosecutors. Now he's Prime Minister. David Lammy, who warned against pandering to the far-right over these gangs and said naming the pattern condemned a whole community, is now Deputy PM and Justice Secretary. Yvette Cooper, who rejected the inquiry, made Foreign Secretary. Andy Burnham, whose review was called a whitewash, now the favourite to be the next Prime Minister.

The wall didn't fall. It got promoted.

So today Carla Lockhart handed Starmer a mirror. She asked the man who sat at the top of that wall to investigate it and he thanked her for her courage, and moved on.

That's the tell. Not a man who wants the truth found. A man who already knows where it leads.

So when he swears the inquiry will go wherever the evidence takes it, ask the one question that matters.

What happens when it leads back to the people now holding it.

That's not a man opening a door for these girls. That's the men who built the wall, handing themselves the only key.

[Associations @Associations123]

@lexilafleur They can play: with people as the same sex as them, like everyone else.

[Associations @Associations123]

@amnesty They already have equal access. They just don't get to play on the opposite sex side.

[Associations @Associations123]

@emergenteffects "Because of our reliance on energy and things like that"

[Associations @Associations123]

@paulg @elonmusk There's nothing hypocritical about it because the claim is not that only the most talented people deserve to live in America. People can non-hypocritically advocate any selection procedure they want for who moves into their country (including saying that no-one can).

[Paul Graham @paulg]

Step 1: Invent a new extra-bad category of crime, like "hate crime" or "terrorism", with extra-harsh punishments.

Step 2: Expand the definition of the new kind of crime to include anything, or anyone, that you want to punish extra harshly.

[Associations @Associations123]

@besttrousers Been very frustrating seeing people give this response to the UK grooming gangs estimates to be sure.

[Associations @Associations123]

@DKThomp Notably exactly the same dynamic has been playing out this last week with the grooming gangs inquiry, but with a different cast of actors on each side.

[Eylon Levy @EylonALevy]

“Please look at me,” begs a survivor of the Hamas Rapist Regime.

But UN “expert” @UNSRVAW Reem Alsalem won’t give her that basic dignity.

There’s no humanity in the UN Human Rights Council.

[Associations @Associations123]

@cremieuxrecueil Using "wrong" to refer to whether a judgement was epistemically justified rather than true is common and reasonable. You may be right that they chose this way to speak because it's flattering, but it's a reasonable way to speak.

[Associations @Associations123]

@DrewSav Because we're not in austerity. Spending marches ever upwards and we spend ever increasing amounts on debt because we don't generate enough money to spend on all the things we spend it on.

[Mish @Mish_K_]

"At the police station, Kate was taken into the interview room. Before the interview began, and without Kate’s mother present, Kate was told that this was her “last chance” to say that her report was untrue. She was warned that if any part of her account could not be supported by evidence, she could and would be arrested. For an extended period of time, both officers repeatedly told her how much trouble she would be in if any detail of her statement was disproved, and that she could withdraw the allegation before the interview started with no further consequences. They also suggested that her parents would be relieved if she said the incident had not happened."