How did we get to the stage that a police officer can use the word "victim" when there has been no crime committed, no trial to prove that there was a "victim" when the "victim" was a random person completely unaffected by a deleted tweet?
How do we undo the thought processes involved to arrive at their claim?
This isn't something that's going to change any time soon.
Superb piece, as usual, Stephen. In fairness, there has been a lot of support for Ms Pearson from a number of her fellow hacks, notably at the Telegraph and the Spectator, as one would expect.
My only concern is that this case only came to public attention because of the journalist's high-profile status. She is just the tip of a chilling iceberg.
I don't doubt for a minute that our incompetent and irredeemably woke plod will continue to use these abhorrent NHCIs to clamp down on free-speech until the law is changed. And I see little prospect of this authoritarian far-Left government doing that.
How did we get to the stage that a police officer can use the word "victim" when there has been no crime committed, no trial to prove that there was a "victim" when the "victim" was a random person completely unaffected by a deleted tweet?
How do we undo the thought processes involved to arrive at their claim?
This isn't something that's going to change any time soon.
Superb piece, as usual, Stephen. In fairness, there has been a lot of support for Ms Pearson from a number of her fellow hacks, notably at the Telegraph and the Spectator, as one would expect.
My only concern is that this case only came to public attention because of the journalist's high-profile status. She is just the tip of a chilling iceberg.
I don't doubt for a minute that our incompetent and irredeemably woke plod will continue to use these abhorrent NHCIs to clamp down on free-speech until the law is changed. And I see little prospect of this authoritarian far-Left government doing that.
Well done, Stephen.