Dateline 06:52 / Tue 23rd April / 2019
Good morning everyone. It’s hello🌞 to work again this morning and hello😁 to another of those “could not make it up” social media moments.
Twitter, despite being a huge, well-funded, well-resourced and modern social media organisation, with top lawyers on its books, has got this Twitter ban wrong on at least TWO counts.
1. @TheIndGroup or CHUK or Change UK is not a living entity or ‘person’.
“The Independent Group” is not a living, breathing human being, carrying personal rights and protections. Whereas we do live, we do breathe, and like every other citizen, our freedom of speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights qualifies for certain rights and protections.
When we called for the “death” (CHUK cannot literally ‘die’) of this organisation, no person could be hurt, offended or begin to build a case around offence, hate speech or harassment.
Because there was no person and therefore no harassment. There was none and there could be none.
Any such ‘harassment’ case – if brought – would be thrown out of court on Day 1 (after any unscrupulous lawyers bringing it had separated the claimant from a large wodge of his / her cash).
To confuse things further, the public cannot be sure what CHUK is. It is secretly-funded. Can a private, secretly-funded organisation qualify for political party status?
Despite the fact that metaphorically speaking, @TheIndGroup will become as ‘bleeding demised’ as Monty Python’s parrot should there be a snap General Election, can it correctly and legally represent members of the public?
Two things are for certain here: @TheIndGroup / CHUK / Change UK does not qualify for protections which can only be afforded to real people. Neither can real people like us be sanctioned or banned for any alleged detriment or offence caused to @TheIndGroup / CHUK / Change UK through alleged ‘harassment’.
2. Under UK Law, harassment normally requires two qualifying incidents.
Our tweet obviously doesn’t qualify anyway (see 1. above) in order for a case to be brought before a UK judge.
So, if CHUK were to follow Twitter’s heavy-handed course of action, perceive ‘harassment’ on the evidence of a single tweet, and bring a case against us, they would be laughed out of court or served with contempt proceedings.
Orwell’s 1984 was a novel, not a manual.
I usually agree with your views. However, what you wrote about the Independent group of MPs is puerile.
It was aimed at the organisation. Read it again