Read on Twitter
Broad consensus on @darrengrimes_ (illustrated by Nick Timothy, Ash Sarkar, Tim Farron & Iain Dale)
- Starkey's open racism reprehensible
- Met over-reaction unnecessary, inappropriate + worrying
- Grimes naive + unprofessional (not just in interviewer role, but as publisher)
- Starkey's open racism reprehensible
- Met over-reaction unnecessary, inappropriate + worrying
- Grimes naive + unprofessional (not just in interviewer role, but as publisher)
However @darrengrimes_ martyr/hero is weak. This shows - even post hoc - he still lacks a basic grasp of what overt racism is, or his responsibility as a publisher. Like Starkey "one word", Grimes only apologised for "one damning clip" in a "nuanced" "bloody fantastic" interview
I can't see it meets the threshold for police intervention but @darrengrimes_ while pledging to be "more alert" to racism, just ignores 3 months on the question of whether he even recognises this rather worse content as racist, while removing another clip https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1279360493522685952?s=19
The bemused Twitter reaction is focused on Grimes being an interviewer who didn't spot overt racism. But it is surely irrelevant that he was also the interviewer. His legal responsibilities are as a publisher + promoter. Here, police response does appear disproportionate to me.
So a focus on it being mad to question an interviewer somewhat misses this point. The critique of Met is that content of Starkey's overt racism did not come close to meeting prosecutable threshold for impact (not just intent) being to stir up racial hatred https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1314702718557134849?s=19
The @darrengrimes_ case will go nowhere. If @ReasonedUK intends to be a mainstream outlet - challenging 'free speech' boundaries *without* promoting extreme content - it would help if @darrengrimes_ acknowledged these lessons: process + knowledge of racism https://twitter.com/flying_rodent/status/1314691142051659778?s=19
Unfortunately, @darrengrimes_ pledge to "be more alert to this sort of thing in future" hasn't yet led to any serious engagement on where the boundary is. As @Seunspeakss noted, this seems like a commitment to recognise overt racism only if it goes viral https://twitter.com/Seunspeakss/status/1279361762329014273?s=19
Here is an expert thread on what is in the 1986 public order act (and why it seems unlikely to be triggered by this content, esp given the additional protections for free expression in the UK Human Rights Act and the transnational ECHR) https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1314853551668068355?s=19
Grimes gives impression of absolutely revelling in the attention, somewhat undermining his "chilling effect" claim. (I would be interested to hear his considered view of whether any of the various laws should exist, from boundaries on Britain First racism to Prevent duties, etc)
