Trolls, threats, the law and deterrence…

trollhunter600

“Internet trolls face up to two years in jail under new laws” screamed the headline on the BBC’s website yesterday, after Chris Grayling decided to “take a stand against a baying cyber-mob”. It’s not the first time that so-called ‘trolls’ have been made the subject of a government ‘stand’ – and a media furore. This particular one arose after TV presenter Chloë Madeley suffered online abuse – that abuse itself triggered by the comments about rape made by her mother, Judy Finnigan, also a TV presenter, on Loose Women.

Twitter ‘trolls’ seem to be a big theme at the moment. Just a few weeks ago we had the tragic case of Brenda Leyland, who it appears committed suicide after being doorstepped by Sky News, accused of ‘trolling’ the parents of Madeleine McCann. A month ago, Peter Nunn was jailed for 18 weeks after a series of abusive tweets aimed at MP Stella Creasy. There are others – not forgetting the ongoing saga of GamerGate (one of my favourite posts on this is here), though that seems to be far bigger news in the US than it is here in the UK. The idea of a troll isn’t something new, and it doesn’t seem to be going away. Nothing’s very clear, though – and what I’ve set out below is very much my personal view.

What is a troll?

There’s still doubt about where the term comes from. It’s not clear that it refers to the kind of beast in the picture above – from the weirdly wonderful Norwegian film ‘Trollhunter’. A few years ago, I was certain it came from a totally different source – ‘trolling’, a kind of fishing where you trail a baited line behind your boat as you row, hoping that some fish comes along and bites it – but I understand now that even that’s in doubt. Most people think of monsters – perhaps hiding under bridges, ready to be knocked off them by billy goats, or perhaps huge, stupid Tolkeinian hulks – but what they are on the internet seems very contentious. In the old days, again, trolls were often essentially harmless – teasing, annoying, trying to get a rise out of people. The kind of thing that I might do on twitter by writing a poem about UKIP, for example – but what happens now can be quite different. The level of nastiness can get seriously extreme – from simple abuse to graphic threats of rape and murder. The threats can be truly hideous – and, from my perspective at least, if you haven’t been a victim of this kind of thing, it’s not possible to really understand what it’s like. I’ve seen some of the tweets – but only a tiny fraction, and I know that what I’ve seen is far from the worst.

The law

The first thing to say is that Grayling’s announcement doesn’t actually seem to be anything new: the ‘quadrupling of sentences’ was brought in in March this year, as an amendment to the Malicious Communications Act 1988.  This is just one of a number of laws that could apply to some of the activities that are described as ‘trolling’. Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is another, which includes the provision that a person is guilty of an offence if he: “sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”.  The infamous ‘Twitter Joke Trial’ of Paul Chambers was under this Act. There have also been convictions for social media posting under the Public Order Act 1986 Section 4A, which makes it an offence to “…with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…  use[s] threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or …displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,” Then there’s the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and potentially Defamation Law too (though that’s civil rather than criminal law).  The law does apply to the internet, and plenty of so-called ‘trolls’ have been prosecuted – and indeed jailed.

What is a threat?

One of the most common reactions that I’ve seen when these issues come up is to say that ‘threats’ should be criminalised, but ‘offensive language’ should not. It’s quite right that freedom of speech should include the freedom to be offensive – if we only allow speech that we agree with, that’s not freedom of speech at all. The problem is that it’s not always possible to tell what is a threat and what is just an offensive opinion – or even a joke. If we think jokes are ‘OK’, then people who really are threatening and offensive will try to say that what they said was just a joke – Peter Nunn did so about his tweets to Stella Creasy. If we try to set rules about what is an opinion and what is a threat, we may find that those who want to threaten couch their language in a way that makes it possible to argue that it’s an opinion.

For example, tweeting to someone that you’re going to rape and murder them is clearly a threat, but tweeting to a celebrity who’s had naked pictures leaked onto the internet that ‘celebrities who take naked pictures of themselves deserve to be raped’ could, potentially, be argued to be an opinion, however offensive. And yet it would almost certainly actually be a threat. A little ‘cleverness’ with language can mask a hideous threat – a threat with every bit as nasty an effect on the person receiving it. It’s not just the words, it’s the context, it’s the intent. It’s whether it’s part of a concerted campaign – or a spontaneous twitter storm.

One person’s troll is another person’s freedom fighter…

The other thing that’s often missed here is that many (perhaps most) so-called trolls wouldn’t consider themselves to be trolls. Indeed, quite the opposite. A quick glance at GamerGate shows that: many of those involved think they’re fighting for survival against forces of oppression. There’s the same story elsewhere: those involved in the so-called ‘trolling’ of the McCanns would (and do) say that they’re campaigning to expose a miscarriage of justice, to fight on behalf of a dead child. Whether someone’s a terrorist of a freedom fighter can depend on the perspective – and that means that laws presented in terms like those used by Grayling used are even less likely to have any kind of deterrent effect. If you don’t consider yourself a troll, why would a law against trolls have any impact?

Whether increasing sentences has any deterrent effect to start with is also deeply questionable. Do those ‘trolling’ even consider the possible sentence? Do they know that what they’re doing is against the law – even with the many laws enumerated above, and the series of convictions under them, many seem to think that the law doesn’t really apply on the internet. Many believe (falsely) that their ‘anonymity’ will protect them – despite the evidence that it won’t. It’s hard to see that sentences are likely to make any real difference at all to ‘trolling’.

There are no silver bullets…

The problem is, that there really isn’t a simple answer to the various things that are labelled ‘trolling’. A change in law won’t make the difference on its own. A change in technology won’t make a difference on its own – those who think that better enforcement by Twitter themselves will make everything OK are sadly far too optimistic. What’s more, any tools – legal or technological – can be used by the wrong people in the wrong way as well as by the right people in the right way. Put in a better abuse reporting system and the ‘trolls’ themselves will use it to report their erstwhile ‘victims’ for abuse. What used to be called ‘flame wars’ where two sides of an argument continually accuse the others of abuse still exist. Laws will be misused – the Twitter Joke Trial is just one example of the prosecutors really missing the point.

There is no simple ‘right’ answer. The various problems lumped together under the vague and misleading term ‘trolling’ are complex societal problems – so solving them is a complex process. Making the law work better is one tiny part – and that doesn’t mean just making it harsher. Indeed, my suspicion is that the kind of pronouncement that Chris Grayling made is likely to make things worse, not better: it doesn’t help understanding at all, and understanding is the most important thing. If we don’t know what we mean by the term ‘troll’, and we don’t understand why people do it, how can we solve – or at least reduce – the problems that arise?

Posturing – and obscuring

The thing is, I’m not convinced that the politicians necessarily even want to solve these problems. Internet trolls are very convenient villains – they’re scary, they’re hidden, they’re dangerous, they’re new, they’re nasty. It’s very easy for the fog of fear to be built up very quickly when internet trolling comes up as a subject. Judy Finnigan’s original (and in my view deeply offensive) remarks about Ched Evans’ rape conviction have been hidden under this troll-fog. Trolls make a nice soundbite, a nice headline – and they’re in some ways classical ‘folk devils’ upon which to focus anger and hate. Brenda Leyland’s death was a stark reminder of how serious this can get. A little more perspective, a little more intelligence and a little less posturing could really help here.

Politics, surveillance and trust….

ThemistoclesThemistocles grinned; it made me like him. “There you see it – that’s how we do it here. Among you Medes, I’m told, there are many men so honorable that everyone trusts them. We’re not like that at all – we never trust one another. So what we do instead is make sure that each side’s represented, so that every rascal’s got two worse looking over his shoulder.”

Gene Wolfe, Soldier of Arete.

I’ve always liked those words, put into the mouth of Themistocles by Gene Wolfe. Soldier of Arete is one of my favourite books – giving a very different perspective on the Ancient Greeks. Wolfe tries (and for me succeeds) to give a sense of what life might really have been like – not a place of divine nobility or unattainable grace, but a place inhabited by real people. Themistocles was one of the most successful of Athenian generals and politicians – someone around at the early days of what we these days call democracy. Wolfe’s version of Themistocles is a very much a likeable character, and a very grounded one. His view of democracy, of honour and of trust is one that seems both very real and very appropriate even for these days. Honour and trust are all very well, but for things to work well, we always need someone looking over people’s shoulders.

That’s particularly relevant to surveillance. ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’, to borrow another classical source. Who watches the watchmen? At the Intelligence and Security Committee ’round table’ sessions on Tuesday (about which I wrote here) it was one of the key issues – as were the issues of honour and trust. The first question that Sir Malcolm Rifkind asked at our table was whether we thought the intelligence services acted with ‘good faith’. I understood him to mean, essentially, whether we trusted them. Whether we thought they were honourable people. My answer was that I did think they were acting in good faith – but that that is not enough. I’m not like the Mede with which Themistocles was talking in Soldier of Arete, who thought some people are so honourable that they can be trusted completely. Good faith is a good start, but it’s not nearly enough. Limits on surveillance, controls, balances and strong oversight are still needed, no matter whether the intelligence services are acting in ‘good faith;’, and regardless of whether they are honourable, trustworthy people. Even the most able and honourable people need to be overseen. They make mistakes. They can be misled. They can be confused. They can be given poor information and make inappropriate decisions. And are we sure they are honourable and acting in good faith? It doesn’t matter if almost all of them are – even a single person who isn’t and is given free rein is capable of creating a disaster.

That’s not to say, of course, that trust isn’t important. At a certain level, we have to trust people – human life would be impossible if we didn’t. In things like surveillance, that trust, however, needs to be earned. It needs to be demonstrated that people are worthy of what trust we give them – and right now, after the Snowden revelations, trust in the intelligence services is in a great deal of doubt. It needs to be rebuilt – and that means much more transparency is needed to start with, but also much more understanding. It needs to be made clear that those in authority understand why people are bothered by this. It means that they need take our worries and concerns seriously.

Right now, too, it means that they can’t expect us to take what they tell us on trust. It means there should be a little more humility, a little more of what might be called ‘grace’. The way that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIP) was steamrollered through parliament this summer showed none of this. The reverse: it showed contempt for people, and a huge amount of disrespect. The whole process, rather than helping to rebuild the trust, to demonstrate the good faith, to show that they are honourable people, reduced that trust, demonstrated bad faith, and suggested that they are far from honourable. And that goes for the ‘honourable members’ of parliament and for the intelligence services who presumably suggested the bill. I say ‘presumably’, because we really don’t know, and never got the chance to find out. Sir Malcolm Rifkind admitted on Tuesday that he didn’t understand RIPA: how many of the MPs who passed DRIP understood what they were passing? My guess is that they ‘trusted’ the people telling them it was needed, and decided that was enough.

Well, for me it wasn’t. Not nearly enough. We need much more – and I’m waiting.

Knights of the ISC Round Table….

Yesterday I took part in the ’round table sessions’ of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament’s ‘Privacy and Security Inquiry’. It was an interesting event – and an enjoyable one, though I hope that doesn’t mean that I’ve already begun the process of being ‘captured’ by the intelligence community. The round table sessions are part of the bigger inquiry – accompanied by public evidence sessions which are continuing through the week.

The whole thing was very informal – I found myself sitting next to Sir Malcolm Rifkind and opposite Lord Lothian around a small, round table, one of three such tables in the room. Yes, the round table sessions really involved round tables. Essentially, we had an hour to chat about whatever issues we felt mattered to the inquiry – we had been invited on the basis of the written evidence we had submitted to the inquiry, back in February this year (mine can be found here). Around the table were an academic computer scientist, what I would call a ‘real’ programmer, a human rights activist, myself, a former lawyer for MI5 and MI6, and the two members of the committee, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Lothian.

There were some very positive things about the discussion – both Rifkind and Lothian appeared to agree, after some resistance, on the first major point that we tried to argue (primarily myself and Izza Leghtas from Human Rights Watch): that the privacy invasion, and hence the first set of proper controls, need to be at the gathering stage, not the accessing stage for data. That, in practice, less data should be gathered and held, and for shorter periods. Moreover, that there should be judicial involvement at the gathering stage – indeed, David Bickford, former Legal Director for MI5 and MI6, thought judges should be involved far more in the whole process, from beginning to end, following the French model.

As part of that discussion, they really did appear to take on board that there are serious risks involved in just gathering and holding data – and seemed to be listening as we listed them!

Other points of agreement were that RIPA is, basically, an awful mess. Rifkind readily admitted that he really didn’t understand it. What that says for his (and the committee’s) ability to oversee the intelligence services is another matter. The feeling from all concerned was that whatever else happens, the law needs review and it needs to be clearer what it actually does – whether directly in the law or in accompanying guidance. It would be nice to see – but I am not holding my breath.

Three particularly interesting things that came out of our brief discussion – and it was brief, because the hour we had went very fast. The first was that Sir Malcolm Rifkind made a very clear differentiation between the intelligence services and the other groups who can use RIPA. He made the argument that the intelligence services really can’t do you any harm unless you’re one of the ‘bad guys’ – and though this was perilously close to saying ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide’ he did acknowledge that it was not an argument that worked in relation to the police, to local authorities or to the other various bodies that utilise surveillance or gathered data. He seemed to suggest that all of those bodies – including the police – need much tighter controls. In the light of the current issues regarding police access to journalists’ communications data, this makes sense, but again it will be interesting to see whether it really amounts to anything.

The second was that David Bickford made the specific comment that if corporations do all the data gathering, analysis and so forth, then surely the intelligence services should be able to do the same. Why should we place more restrictions on the intelligence services than we do on Google and Facebook? When I suggested that perhaps this means that we should put more restrictions on Google and Facebook rather than less on the intelligence services, he laughed a bit, but did seem to get the point.

The third was that both Lord Lothian and Sir Malcolm Rifkind noted that the Human Rights Act provided protection – and when I teased him about the planned impending doom of the Human Rights Act, Rifkind almost winced, and said that there’s always the ECHR. I got the distinct feeling that Rifkind is not enamoured of Grayling’s plan for human rights, though he was far too diplomatic to say so.

Much more was said, and overall it was a good and fairly robust discussion – we all seemed to be able to say what we wanted, and the two committee members seemed genuinely to be listening. They are, however, politicians – and they were also very aware of the limitations of their own powers, and how hard it is to change things in this field with any speed. They were keenest of all on increasing transparency, and moving to a position where the default position is that information is disclosed, and is made public, rather than the opposite. I hope this happens….

….but I remain cynical about it all. The question of whether what the committee does actually has any impact on what the security and intelligence services do remains unanswered. Is this all just a PR exercise, or is there some more profound change going on? It will take a lot more than a few round table sessions, even with Knights like Sir Malcolm Rifkind, to convince me. However, I found myself just a smidgen less cynical than I was before the session started. Perhaps I’ve been captured after all.

Not Ed Miliband’s speech on immigration

Now a lot of people have asked me how Labour should respond to UKIP.

I have thought about it a lot, and I tell you this: I will not cede the issue of immigration to those offering fear or falsehood.

I promise, we will listen to what people tell us on the doorstep. Not just if those people are called Gareth. We do listen. And we do understand. We hear many things that people say about immigration – and about many other things. About poverty. About jobs. About the cost of social security. About the NHS. About housing. And we understand when people seem to make links between immigration and those other things – but we have to be clear about whether those links are true or not. Where they are true, we have to be bold, and strong – but when they are not true, we have to be bold and strong too.

So when people say that they are worried about the NHS, and the strain being put on the NHS by immigration, we will say that we are worried about the NHS too, and that we will do everything we can to make sure the NHS is properly funded. That we have doctors and nurses that are looked after and supported. That we will not allow the NHS to be driven down into despair so that it can be sold off – but we will also be clear that immigrants and immigration is not putting a strain on the NHS: quite the opposite. Immigrants do not come over here to use our health service – they come over hear to work in our health service. The contribution made by immigrants as doctors, as nurses, as support staff of all kinds, is critical to the health service. And immigrants use health services less than most people. They’re not a drain on the health service. They support it. Immigration is good for the NHS. What is bad for the NHS is the creeping privatisation – and we’re sorry that we in the Labour Party made the wrong moves in initiating Public Finance Initiatives. We will prevent any future privatisation – and ensure proper funding for the NHS.

And when people say they are worried that about housing, and that immigration is putting a strain on housing, we will say that we are worried about housing too, and will be ensuring that more affordable – and by that we mean genuinely affordable – houses are build. We will look at ways to make the currently dysfunctional housing market work better for everyone – but it needs to be entirely clear that it is the housing market that is the problem, not immigration. It’s not the immigrants but the unscrupulous landlords who cause the problems in the housing market – and we will make sure that tenants have proper protection, and that rents are kept at affordable levels.

And when people tell us that they are worried about the amounts we have to pay for social security, we will say that we understand – and we do – but we will also make it entirely clear that the idea of ‘benefits tourism’ is also a myth. Immigrants do not place a burden on the benefits system any more than they do on the health service. Indeed, they pay more in tax than they receive in benefits. Immigration does not cost money – it contributes, and those who suggest otherwise whilst knowing the real figures are doing so to mislead, to confuse, and to try to make people blame those who are not to blame.

Now, let’s talk a little bit about jobs, and about unemployment. It’s a common suggestion – one made by UKIP at the European elections – that people from Europe are coming here to take your jobs. That to is a damaging and disturbing myth, one often deliberately intended to spread fear and division. Overall, immigration – and immigration from Europe in particular – creates more jobs than it takes. Now unemployment is a problem – and low wages are a problem – but they’re not caused by immigration, and to suggest so is disingenuous at best. We need to be quite clear about that. It is true, however, that particularly at the lower end of the wage scale immigration can put pressure on, and in some particular local areas it can put pressure on – in the short term. We will address this directly – by raising the minimum wage, by enforcing that minimum wage, by clamping down on those manipulative and unscrupulous employers who take advantage of both British and immigrant workers – and by providing a social security system that supports those in need rather than stigmatising them and demonising them.

Now it’s important to understand that there are those who would use immigration as a scapegoat for the problems we face. I could have mentioned education – some suggest, falsely, that immigration puts pressure on our education system – or crime, which is also falsely blamed on immigration. It’s easy to blame immigrants – but it’s wrong, and it’s damaging. It means that the people who are really responsible for these problems – the dodgy landlords, the unscrupulous employers, those who actually caused the financial problems we face – are let off the hook. What’s more, it means we don’t do what is really needed to sort out our problems. We don’t address the dysfunctional housing market. We don’t provide proper funding for our health and education systems. We don’t sort out our social security system in a way that really works – all we do is find people to punish.

For that reason, I won’t be announcing punitive new measures on benefits for immigrants. I won’t be announcing figures to limit immigration.  Instead, I’ll be dealing with the real problems, not basing policy on lies.

Because they are lies – and we will fight those lies, because the lies hurt. They hurt immigrants. They hurt you. They create division and damage, foster hatred and ignorance. They hurt the country. They hurt us all.

————————————

…but of course he won’t say any of that, because it’s too late. They’ve let the lies go unchallenged for so long that it’s too hard to fight. So instead, on goes the damage, on goes the hatred, and the problems remain unsolved…. and instead they fester, like a sore.

UKIP’s idea of freedom…..

Reading about Nigel Farage’s idea to ban HIV+ immigrants from the UK made me shake my head…. and as @auntysarah reminded me on Twitter, this is pure dog-whistle politics. As she put it:

Screen Shot 2014-10-11 at 13.10.27

I’m pretty sure she’s right – and it’s not the first time. Farage’s line to James O’Brien (see here), about his line that ‘you know what the difference is’ about Romanians moving in next door is just the same kind of thing. It’s about making people afraid of ‘the other’. All those people you ‘know’ you should be afraid of….

That in turn reminded me of a classic Tom Robinson Band song: Power in the Darkness, which parodies the kind of politics that UKIP represents, and that many of us hoped we’d seen off back in the 80s. The video is below, but here are the key lyrics.

And it’s about time we said ‘Enough is enough’
And saw a return to the traditional British values of discipline
Obedience, morality and freedom
What we want is

Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals
Prostitutes, pansies and punks
Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents
Lesbians and left wing scum

Freedom from the niggers and the Pakis and the unions
Freedom from the gypsies and the Jews
Freedom from left wing layabouts and liberals
Freedom from the likes of you

I hoped we’d seen that kind of thing off in the 80s. We haven’t. It’s still there, and being dog-whistled at all the time. It really IS time we said enough is enough – but to this…

The rant is a little more than 3 minutes into this video. If you don’t know the song, you really should!

We have met the enemy and he is us…

pogoI suppose I shouldn’t have been upset by the results of the two by-elections last night – but I was. I suppose I still had a slight hope in my mind that things weren’t really as bad as the opinion polls, and my gut feelings, suggested they were. I was wrong. I often am. As it was, UKIP triumphed in Clacton, and came very close to triumphing even more dramatically in Heywood and Middleton.

The post-mortems are already happening in so many places. All kinds of people are looking for all kinds of reasons, and all kinds of people to blame – and it’s easy to find possible scapegoats. I do it myself, regularly railing against the BBC – I even run my own parody account based on the BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson, portraying him as the founder of the Nigel Farage Fan Club. We can – and often do – try to blame the Daily Mail and its tabloid companions, for their seemingly incessant campaigns against immigrants, trying to blame them for everything from unemployment and housing problems to the challenges facing the NHS. We can try to blame the Labour Party for failing to stand up for what is right – failing to appeal to its core voters, failing to understand ordinary people. We can blame them for accepting the anti-immigrant agenda of the Mail etc without question – or we can blame them for not accepting it, and hence not understanding the genuine concerns of the ordinary people.

We can try to blame Nigel Farage and his band of chancers for pulling the wool over the voters’ eyes – and they do, portraying themselves as different from the ‘ordinary’ politicians when in almost every way they are indistinguishable. We can blame them for using dog-whistle politics, appealing to the lowest common denominator, using racism – sometimes direct, sometimes just with a nod and a wink- and they do, no question about it. We can blame the Tories for pandering to their extreme right – or we can blame them for not pandering to their extreme right, so leaving a space for the likes of Farage.

We can blame the banks and so forth for trying to distract us from the real reasons for the financial crash – and hence convincing us to accept the neo-liberal agenda of austerity. Oh, there are a whole lot of ways in which we can find people to blame. The blame game is an easy one to play – which is part of the reason for the success of UKIP. They play it better than almost anyone, convincing us sometimes that the EU is to blame for everything, sometimes that immigrants are to blame for everything, sometimes both. Sometimes they blame ‘LibLabCon’. It’s easy to do. And yet it misses the point.

In the end, the problem isn’t with ‘someone else’. It’s us. The Pogo comic above has been used for a number of purposes – initially highlighting the dangers of McCarthyism, where people who were ‘un-American’ were effectively hounded, scapegoated and persecuted, and later for ‘Earth-day’, highlighting how self-destructive we are in the way we treat our environment.

That’s the scariest thing about yesterday’s election. Not that it’s somehow unrepresentative of how we are, but that it might be. The things that UKIP uses as dog whistles, the racism, the homophobia, the xenophobia, the desire to blame people weaker than ourselves, only function as dog whistles because there’s a lot of racism, homophobia and xenophobia about. It taps into something about us. Of course it’s only part of UKIP’s appeal, because the other call to arms, the one against the self-serving Westminster Elite, hits another critical nerve. The Westminster elite are self-serving, disconnected and deserving primarily of contempt. Farage is quite right about that – though he conveniently fails to mention that he’s one of them in almost every way. The trouble is, it is us that have let them get that way. And we continue to do so – even by voting UKIP.

I don’t have any answers. I don’t think there really are any answers. When we’re fighting against ourselves, it’s hard to find them. We really are our own worst enemies.

What to do when you make a mistake – an object lesson!

A little earlier in the week I posted a piece on how difficult it is for politicians to admit they’ve made a mistake. Well, if they were paying attention during the Lib Dem conference today, they’d have learnt an object lesson, from the BBC’s Louise Stewart. Here’s what she tweeted, before Nick Clegg’s speech:

Screen Shot 2014-10-08 at 19.29.56

Stunningly brilliant – hilarious, and entirely unintentional. A mixture of a typo and the joys of predictive text. It caused immediate hilarity… so what did Louise Stewart do? Delete the tweet, and pretend it didn’t happen – one of the many dodgy techniques used by the Conservative Party Press Office in their altercation with David Allen Green earlier in the week? Suggest that someone hacked her account, as is the standard excuse when MPs tweet something racist, sexist or stupid?

No. Louise Stewart just admitted it straight out.

Screen Shot 2014-10-08 at 19.30.13

And she didn’t delete the tweet. She admitted it, apologised and saw the funny side – as did others. In the last conference of a conference season full of lies, reinvention of history, dissembling and misinformation, it may well be the first piece of honesty on the political scene.

Louise Stewart, I salute you!