Following the discussion yesterday that was subsequently hijacked by a troll, some thoughts spring to mind.
Initially, my irritation was that one individual thought that he should judge others because those “others” had not jumped onto his preferred bandwagon. This is the second time that this has happened in the past few weeks, and it is becoming tiresome – hence my decision to offer an explanation. I do not write according to an agenda set by others, and I do not write what the mob tells me to write and I do not make decisions based upon what conclusions they might draw as a consequence of my silence. James Graham’s subsequent response to my points diminished his credibility still further.
I choose what I write about and when.
That’s right. And I judge you accordingly. Is there a law against that?
Frankly, if it hadn’t been for the persistent trolling of the thread by glasshopper, this would have taken the prize for the most crass and stupid comment of the day. Anyone who is prepared to make a judgement based upon what someone has not said says much about themselves – and it ain’t good. And, frankly, they are someone who is not to be taken seriously. Judgements should be made after careful consideration of the evidence, not upon a lack thereof.
Like Guido in Mr E’s comments thread on this subject; if I have nothing further to add, no new insight or, frankly, it’s been done to death already, then generally, I will say nothing. It doesn’t mean that I do not have an opinion, it means I have not voiced it. Contrary to the assertions made by my troll, I am under no obligation to voice an opinion if I choose not to.
Perhaps the most absurd thing to occur was the arrival of this troll (I suppose it had to happen sooner or later) who thought that he was best placed to know better than I what I meant – even though it was written in plain English and was perfectly clear. My comments regarding caution were just that. I do not engage in implicit innuendo. When I have something to say; I say it, clearly and explicitly. If I really thought people who had commented so far on the Ian Tomlinson video were all fools, then that is what I would have said. I did not say that, therefore, it is erroneous to make such an assumption. There’s an old saying about making assumptions and it certainly applied here. In bucket loads.
Toying with trolls is amusing for a short while, but they have a habit of becoming tedious – as, indeed, this one did; simply repeating his absurd assertions ad nauseum. There comes a point where patience is no longer applicable, as happened here.
My work involves analysing evidence. A am prohibited from making a final judgement if there is insufficient evidence upon which to make a decision. Consequently, I tend to take a wait and see approach if the evidence is incomplete. I stand resolutely by what I said when I made my comment about waiting for more facts to emerge before I made a reasoned assessment on the Ian Tomlinson video. This statement means precisely that. It does not mean anything else and there is no hidden sub-text between the lines.
It would seem that since the original discussion, events have moved on, with more footage being released and the police officer concerned coming forward. This is good. Now is the time to let justice take its course. This means firstly, that the trial by media ceases forthwith and secondly, this officer is innocent until proven guilty. That is how the rule of law works and the police should be no exception.
One final thought; this blog is like my front porch. We are sitting outside in the evening sun and there is a convivial conversation going on. As you walk by on the pavement outside, you are free to join in that conversation and you will be made welcome – even if you disagree with me. A considered case may well cause me to change my mind. However, if you choose to engage in vandalism; drive by trolling or outright idiocy, then I will treat you with contempt. If you feel that this is arrogant, well, tough, grow a thicker skin and while you are at it, grow up. If you don’t like what I write; move on. I don’t force you to read this and won’t miss you if you don’t.
Lot of ‘anonymous’ trolls about on the ‘G20 death’ threads. I think they’re a trifle disappointed that not everyone thinks that the ‘martyr’ to their cause may not really be a martyr at all.