1/ Something very important is being missed in the Peter Murrell coverage. And it explains why Murrell was able to carry on the embezzlement long after he should have been stopped. And why John Swinney cannot hide behind the “victim of criminality” defence.🧵
@DalgetySusan The chief exec of a political party has been found guilty of embezzlement. Senior officers of the party stifled enquiries. But we mustn't politicise it. Right. Got it. Can't be talking Scotland down.
@DalgetySusan Not the same though. Once you get pulled in it's only one way. Though he could at least have gone for a La Marzocco. Clearly not as deep in as all that.
To save replying to all those complaining that linking Sturgeon to Murrell’s embezzlement is “misogyny” a reminder that she was not only his wife. She was his boss and as long time leader of the SNP she had ultimate responsibility for its governance and oversight.
@soniasodha I suspect 2. Unless Starmer really tries to soldier on and Streeting does not challenge (also bad). Many a slip twix etc tho. Can Burnham even be guaranteed to get back into Parliament? I guess it might come down to whether WS thinks he can win. The odds seem against him.
@helenlewis Perhaps the issue is also about us? Do we actually want parties that will tell us the truth? Or even slightly try and engage with the reality of these kinds of choices? Labour have been less than great, but it seems also to be extremely hard balance the choices.
I haven't been this depressed about British politics since the post-Brexit period, when it was similiarly clear that every potential course of action involved huge, painful trade-offs, and so all the parties just spent years on displacement activities instead.
We started a podcast with the deliberate aim of talking to a range of voices. We had had enough of the polarisation and mudslinging of social media.
We went to significant effort to seek out different perspectives. Our criterion was not whether they agreed with us, but whether we thought they would have an interesting angle to add. We made it clear in the podcast that the views of the guests did not necessarily represent those of the hosts.
From the start we wanted this to be a space where people explained their ideas so that the listener could understand and make up their own mind. We wanted to model openness and tolerance of disagreement. We wanted to do something different to what happens on social media.
When we released our first episode, with Dame Uta Frith, we quickly discovered why these conversations are impossible. She said things which some people disagreed with, and as a result they blamed us for platforming her. There was little reasoned discussion of her ideas, and a lot of flinging of mud. People I had worked with and who I respected recorded videos about the harm I was causing and how disappointed they were. Others made huge assumptions about what we, as interviewers thought, including dismissing the suffering and experience of others and having a right wing agenda to cut benefits. Things that Uta had not said were attributed to her, and by association to us.
Immediately, our other podcast guests started to withdraw. People whose work I really respected and who had fascinating things to say backed away, scared perhaps that they too would be tainted by association. Their viewpoints were very different to Uta and that is exactly why we asked them. Just like when we interviewed Uta, we wanted to really hear and understand what they had to say. That won’t be possible now.
There’s something going on in the online autism world, and it’s not healthy. Many people are terrified to say what they think, for fear of the sort of thing that has happened to me this week. Useful and valid viewpoints are not being heard. Self-censuring is rife. Online shaming has been normalised. As a result, the growth of knowledge is stifled.
If you disagree with what Uta Frith said and you’d like to come on our podcast, please email me. We’d love to have you.
https://t.co/NCV214Mcz2
Yes.
Writing is not a second thing that happens after thinking. The act of writing is an act of thinking. Writing *is* thinking.
Students, academics, and anyone else who outsources their writing to LLMs will find their screens full of words and their minds emptied of thought.
@seaningle Indeed. It was a strange decision. Good to see the other side of the case being made though (that the tech is more reliable). Though personally I will miss the extra drama of the challenges.
We have a 3-day-a-week post available on the Salomons/Canterbury Christ Church Clinical Psychology Training Doctorate. A combination of remote working and on site in Tunbridge Wells. Details below. https://t.co/9CEVVo3Kt7