4 ms·

Flagging this for altered title, both in words and spirit. IT says police will have that power, not that they will do it, and that's not even remotely what the

Flagging this for altered title, both in words and spirit. IT says police will have that power, not that they will do it, and that's not even remotely what the article is about.

noarchy 17y ago
"Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events." Ok, so change the title to "may", not "will". And the article discusses a number of things, one of which happens to be what the rest of us are talking about here.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it. I think this qualifies as gratuitous editorial spin. Perhaps not if you changed it to "may", though it's still borderline.
mortenjorck 17y ago
You are of the opinion that the granting of a police power does not necessarily mean it will be used? I would like to suggest you familiarize yourself with the history of how police powers generally work. As to your second point... If this article instead contained a brief mention of how a tech company had shared personal information of anti-Olympic protesters with the London police, would you still flag it because that was not the main point of the article?
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  This is a straw man. I wasn't commenting on whether the power is right or wrong or will or will not be used. I was commenting on the editorialized and misleading title. It says "Police to..." as if they have announced plans to or something. More appropriate would be "Police granted right to..." One's accurate, one is linkbait (or here, commentbait). I'd flag anything that has a title that I feel is baiting.
igorhvr 17y ago
> IT says police will have that power, not that they will do it If you think someone won't use (or abuse) this power, you are extremely optimistic.

Flagging this for altered title, both in words and spirit. IT says police will have that power, not that they will do it, and that's not even remotely what the article is about.

noarchy 17y ago

"Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events." Ok, so change the title to "may", not "will". And the article discusses a number of things, one of which happens to be what the rest of us are talking about here.

mattmaroon 17y ago
"You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it. I think this qualifies as gratuitous editorial spin. Perhaps not if you changed it to "may", though it's still borderline.

mortenjorck 17y ago

You are of the opinion that the granting of a police power does not necessarily mean it will be used? I would like to suggest you familiarize yourself with the history of how police powers generally work. As to your second point... If this article instead contained a brief mention of how a tech company had shared personal information of anti-Olympic protesters with the London police, would you still flag it because that was not the main point of the article?

mattmaroon 17y ago
This is a straw man. I wasn't commenting on whether the power is right or wrong or will or will not be used. I was commenting on the editorialized and misleading title. It says "Police to..." as if they have announced plans to or something. More appropriate would be "Police granted right to..." One's accurate, one is linkbait (or here, commentbait). I'd flag anything that has a title that I feel is baiting.

igorhvr 17y ago

> IT says police will have that power, not that they will do it If you think someone won't use (or abuse) this power, you are extremely optimistic.