Birdwatch Note
2023-11-01 16:08:37 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
Gail Bradbrook has been convicted for criminal damage, not for protesting. The right to peaceful protest as defined in Article 11 of the Human Rights Act remains. Breaking a security window with tools is criminal damage, which is not a protected by the right to protest. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/AG-Ref-Colston-Four-judgment-280922.pdf
Written by 5C1CE964C71839079833F594FC32A7F2E8AD284EAEE0630EAF048A16326BDA69
Participant Details
Original Tweet
Tweet embedding is no longer reliably available, due to the platform's instability (in terms of both technology and policy). If the Tweet still exists, you can view it here: https://twitter.com/foo_bar/status/1719732183357604145
Please note, though, that you may need to have your own Twitter account to access that page. I am currently exploring options for archiving Tweet data in a post-API context.
All Information
- ID - 1719748284351164648
- noteId - 1719748284351164648
- participantId -
- noteAuthorParticipantId - 5C1CE964C71839079833F594FC32A7F2E8AD284EAEE0630EAF048A16326BDA69 Participant Details
- createdAtMillis - 1698854917030
- tweetId - 1719732183357604145
- classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
- believable -
- harmful -
- validationDifficulty -
- misleadingOther - 0
- misleadingFactualError - 0
- misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
- misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
- misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
- misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
- misleadingSatire - 0
- notMisleadingOther - 0
- notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
- notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
- notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
- notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
- trustworthySources - 1
- summary
- Gail Bradbrook has been convicted for criminal damage, not for protesting. The right to peaceful protest as defined in Article 11 of the Human Rights Act remains. Breaking a security window with tools is criminal damage, which is not a protected by the right to protest. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/AG-Ref-Colston-Four-judgment-280922.pdf
Note Status History
createdAt | timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus | firstNonNMRStatus | timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus | currentStatus | timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus | mostRecentNonNMRStatus | participantId |
2023-11-01 16:08:37 UTC (1698854917030) |
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC (-1) |
2023-11-02 07:47:06 UTC (1698911226426) |
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC (-1) |
Note Ratings
rated at | rated by | |
2023-11-03 10:55:58 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-03 03:52:44 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-02 15:36:40 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-02 15:17:43 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-02 15:07:57 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-02 14:35:34 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-02 10:38:07 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-02 04:38:13 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-01 19:12:41 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-01 16:57:48 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-01 13:52:51 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-01 12:38:53 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-01 12:34:52 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-01 12:01:32 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-01 11:26:41 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-01 11:25:37 -0500 | Rating Details | |
2023-11-24 06:45:02 -0600 | Rating Details |