4 ms·

here's the poster in question: https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/463299139917213696/photo/1/large https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/4632991399

by nemof 12y ago

here's the poster in question: https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/463299139917213696/photo/1/large https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/46329913991721369... for context for non UK folk, the guy posting the story is a green (left of the center, strong environmental politics), and UKIP who are the current talk de jour in the UK are a rightwing nationalist party who are more acceptable in the UK than just blatantly supporting the BNP. Oh, and if the police got involved, to be frank, assuming it happened like op said, that's absolute bullshit and basically intimidation. Considering the reach that tweet/poster image has had, I wouldn't be surprised if someone with connections within UKIP had pulled some strings to get the police to visit this guy.

seabee 12y ago
Unless policy has changed in 5 years, you don't need to pull strings to make the police visit somebody who made tweets you don't like. You just need to make the right noises and be sufficiently offended such that the police will check whether there is a genuine problem or not. It's pretty scary getting a phone call or visit from the police, but they make it quite clear you're not in trouble, at which point it's mostly infuriating that someone got butthurt enough to trouble you in this manner.
- ajb 12y ago
  True, but they should not have asked him to take it down. I can think of scenarios where it would be reasonable for the police to ask someone to stop legal behavior - "please stop pissing off your neighbours" - but this is not one of them.
  - seabee 12y ago
    I was asked to remove offending content too. Like OP they admitted they couldn't make me, but it was implied that it would appease the offended party and make things easier (for them, at least, since it makes it more likely the crank would stop wasting their time). It certainly wasn't suggested in the way the Mafia might suggest you pay for protection, if that's what you're thinking. There was no sense of authority when they asked it. It sounds like the same thing happened to OP.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Honestly I think it is fairly problematic for them to even relay the request that you take it down. If the aggrieved party has an issue with what you are saying but you are operating within your rights and the law, then the aggrieved party can make the request themselves. I think that having the police, or a politician (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090903014.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09...) or any other member of the government relay those requests is out of line.
      - seabee 12y ago
        True. Looking back on it I was pretty mad at the time, especially over what is a civil matter, but it proved to be absolutely inconsequential.
nailer 12y ago
The post (if by 'poster' you meant post) is confusing. UKIP say they're cancelling house building on green belt land, someone else says there's 'numerous refs', the someone else says no source was found. It seems to be pointing out that the of the claims against UKIP aren't referenced, but it's being tweeted by a Green Party supporter.
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  After digging through his twitter stream, it looks like he took an existing image and tried to add references for the claims.
  - tomelders 12y ago
    He did. But as he mentions in his post, he only references official UKIP sources. The unreferenced ones are contentious, but from my understanding of UKIP's plans, they're broadly correct.
- nemof 12y ago
  ah, he confirmed on twitter last night: https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/465607060286345216 https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/46560706028634521... so I think what happened is that the original image was produced, someone annotated it with unverified info, and Michael Abberton then double checked this and annotated it further with the bold text to note any claims which couldn't be confirmed. I think that he's confirming that some claims aren't verified because he's being honest, irrespective of party ties.

by nemof 12y ago

seabee 12y ago

Unless policy has changed in 5 years, you don't need to pull strings to make the police visit somebody who made tweets you don't like. You just need to make the right noises and be sufficiently offended such that the police will check whether there is a genuine problem or not. It's pretty scary getting a phone call or visit from the police, but they make it quite clear you're not in trouble, at which point it's mostly infuriating that someone got butthurt enough to trouble you in this manner.

ajb 12y ago
True, but they should not have asked him to take it down. I can think of scenarios where it would be reasonable for the police to ask someone to stop legal behavior - "please stop pissing off your neighbours" - but this is not one of them.
- seabee 12y ago
  I was asked to remove offending content too. Like OP they admitted they couldn't make me, but it was implied that it would appease the offended party and make things easier (for them, at least, since it makes it more likely the crank would stop wasting their time). It certainly wasn't suggested in the way the Mafia might suggest you pay for protection, if that's what you're thinking. There was no sense of authority when they asked it. It sounds like the same thing happened to OP.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Honestly I think it is fairly problematic for them to even relay the request that you take it down. If the aggrieved party has an issue with what you are saying but you are operating within your rights and the law, then the aggrieved party can make the request themselves. I think that having the police, or a politician (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090903014.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09...) or any other member of the government relay those requests is out of line.
    - seabee 12y ago
      True. Looking back on it I was pretty mad at the time, especially over what is a civil matter, but it proved to be absolutely inconsequential.

nailer 12y ago

The post (if by 'poster' you meant post) is confusing. UKIP say they're cancelling house building on green belt land, someone else says there's 'numerous refs', the someone else says no source was found. It seems to be pointing out that the of the claims against UKIP aren't referenced, but it's being tweeted by a Green Party supporter.

A_COMPUTER 12y ago
After digging through his twitter stream, it looks like he took an existing image and tried to add references for the claims.
- tomelders 12y ago
  He did. But as he mentions in his post, he only references official UKIP sources. The unreferenced ones are contentious, but from my understanding of UKIP's plans, they're broadly correct.
nemof 12y ago
ah, he confirmed on twitter last night: https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/465607060286345216 https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/46560706028634521... so I think what happened is that the original image was produced, someone annotated it with unverified info, and Michael Abberton then double checked this and annotated it further with the bold text to note any claims which couldn't be confirmed. I think that he's confirming that some claims aren't verified because he's being honest, irrespective of party ties.