h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Battle of Orgreave - 18 June 1984 [Original Version] - A19104905
Author: Pinniped - U183682


The post-Charlotte Slants have now pronounced on this, and the opinion is unchanged, though a little better explained. It can't go into the EG, because of unsubstantiated assertions about living persons.

That would be libel then, I guess.

Shame, 'cos through these eyes and in this part of the world, every word is true.

The version now in PR will go into limbo once the Scouts have had a couple of days to ponder the pronouncement. It had some conciliatory alterations that spoiled it a little, and so this AWW version reverts to the original intent.

I hope it makes you think

Pin

It always did, Pin. A truly fine piece of writing - not that I am worthy of judging - that opened my eyes to possibilities and nuances that were not previously there. Thank you.
W

Same here. It's a great piece of writing which does justice to its subject - what else is there to say? In whatever guise, this must be the most thoroughly reviewed piece of writing on hootoo by now - it's a pleasure to read it again without 'suitability' being any sort of consideration.

I hadn't read this before, but I agree that it's an excellent account. I think that the method of alternating the accounts of the battle itself and the economic and social background succeeds in giving the reader the facts without losing the exciting narrative.

I do remember watching the TV footage of the event. I suppose I didn't feel that it affected me much, because I'm not part of that community. But I thought that Mrs Thatcher was wrong in lots of ways.

One of the bits that most made me think - that has shock value, is the mercenaries reference. It's at once both very unfair and a very fair point to make. And is very telling and would not have made an EG version.

PollyannaWaz

Pin, this is a fantastic account.

I need to read it again.

Riveting account, and enlightening. Well-researched and well-written.

One small comment, and I'm sorry it's not more helpful: I think the second paragraph from the end needs a slight change in tone, but I'm not sure exactly what. I know what you're driving at, and it could be punchier with just a tad more distance, maybe?

Thanks all

I know what you mean about the authority of distance, dmg, but the indignance is heartfelt.

Objectivity was hard work this time, and so there are a few places where it slips, but hopefully not too much.

Oh, I know what you mean, and sincerely second the indignation.

The version that entered and left Peer Review is here: A48711594

<BB<

I have no idea if this version or the other one breaks any UK laws.

If it doesn't, and considering we don't cause Questions to Be Asked in Parliament anymore, what would you like to do with it?

I'd say that if Pinniped hadn't clicked the 'Not for Review' button on the Peer Review version, I'd definitely welcome the Peer Review version back into FM, then Peer Review and then hopefully the Edited Guide.

I believe that UK Freedom of Speech laws prohibits communication that is: threatening, abusive or insulting, intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace, incitement to racial or religious hatred or terrorism, obscenity, indecency, defamation, libel, prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct and laws regarding advertising.

I personally don't see any reason why this would be prohibited under any of those, but I'm definitely not an expert. Still, it looks like Pinniped ed about a year ago and 'Not for Review' has been ticked, so we have to respect that.

<BB<

Absolutely, we should respect that. And I agree: the entry looked fine to me, that's why I asked. Because I would have been in favour of including it, too.