For heaven’s sake stop grovelling to the Twitter mob

Not for the first time, trevor Phillips spoke for Britain. the sane section of the population, at any rate. the ex-head of the equalities commission was commenting on a ridiculous ‘racism’ row involving the British Museum, which has caved in to a bunch of hair-trigger headbangers.

It arose out of a question and answer session on social media, during which one of its curators remarked that some Asian names can be confusing.

Jane Portal, Keeper of the Asian Department, discussed re-labelling a few exhibits to make them more ‘accessible’.

She had in mind names which sound like Countdown Conundrums — such as the Buddhist bodhisattva of mercy, aka Avalokitesvara in Indian, Guanyin in Chinese, Kwanum in Korea...well, you get the picture.

Miss Portal — there’s a name for the internet age, if ever I heard one — dared to venture that simplifying some of the labels might assist understanding, especially among younger people.

At this stage — how the heart sinks — a ‘twitter storm erupted’. She found herself accused of ‘racism’, ‘imperialism’ and ‘perpetuating colonialist heritage’.

Instead of telling these selfabsorbed losers to get stuffed, or simply ignoring them, within 90 minutes of the first tweet landing, the museum issued a grovelling apology for ‘any offence caused’.

WhY? Why the hell should an august, publicly-funded institution of learning have its policy dictated by half a dozen online onanists?

there’s no accounting for those who fill their empty lives sitting in front of a laptop, the remains of last night’s vegetarian pizza strewn on the floor of their bedsit above a kebab shop, just waiting to find offence in anything.

So it’s best to take no notice whatsoever. let them rant and rave in cyberspace to their poison hearts’ content.

It wasn’t necessary for the British Museum to rise to the bait. As trevor Phillips said: ‘I genuinely cannot understand why they would feel the need to apologise to people who really, if they actually wanted to tackle racism . . . I could come up with 100 better targets than this.

‘Anybody who wants to get themselves into a state about this cannot for one second be taken seriously as an anti-racism campaigner. they are behaving like silly, narcissistic teenagers.’

And should be treated as such. If you don’t engage with them, they’ll go away and try to intimidate someone else. What’s most depressing, as I wrote last week, is the craven capitulation of so many organisations to ‘pressure’ from social media. Most of their tormentors hide behind a cloak of anonymity, anyway.

I had in mind commercial concerns, such as retailers and advertisers, but as the British Museum reaction confirms, public bodies are equally culpable when it comes to cowardice in the face of cyberspace bullying.

here’s a ‘for instance’. In last Friday’s column, prompted by the current wave of transgender madness aimed at schoolchildren, I criticised some companies for giving in to social media campaigns instigated by a minuscule number of maniacs.

Within about ten minutes, I’d been proved right. Some outfit which trawls the internet for ‘hate’ — i.e: any opinion they disagree with — discovered that an advert for a fashion boutique business you’ve never heard of had appeared next to this column online.

Under pressure from the ‘antihate’ headbangers, the company immediately put out a statement distancing itself from ‘transphobia’ and announcing that it was withdrawing all advertising from the Daily Mail.

this came as something of a surprise, since said company has never advertised in this newspaper. Still, better safe than sorry, as far as the brave boutique bosses were concerned. time to hoist the white flag. Why risk the wrath of social media warriors? Small beer, admittedly, but another victory for the enemies of free speech: fringe left-wing fascists attempting to impose their bigotry on the majority.

Call me old-fashioned, but I’m astonished anyone takes any notice of what’s posted on twitter. I don’t read it, so it’s water off a duck’s wossname.

having said that, I appreciate that some of its content can be extremely hurtful, if not downright criminal.

SteP forward Diane Abbott, for whom I’ve always had a soft spot, despite the fact that we agree on virtually nothing politically. She adds hugely to the gaiety of the nation — even, perhaps especially, when she’s spouting illinformed nonsense.

Yesterday, Diane turned up on breakfast telly — which hardly anyone watches — to complain about truly hateful attacks on her on twitter. For once, she was well-briefed — and this time it was personal.

there’s a world of difference between ‘sticks and stones’ and rape and death threats. the perpetrators of this vile abuse should be tracked down and prosecuted — or better still, dragged out from in front of their computers and clubbed like baby seals.

Diane’s mistake was to state explicitly the terms in which disgusting and violent racial hatred had been directed at her, using the N-word to illustrate her case. It was brutal, but it brought her point home with devastating effect.

the presenters went into a blind panic and within no time at all, without irony, ‘a twitter storm erupted’. oh, for heaven’s sake.

obviously, I didn’t see it live, but if I had I wouldn’t have been offended. It was just Diane being Diane. But then, I like to think I’m a grown-up, unlike the juvenile twitterati who worked themselves up into a lather of bogus indignation about ‘racist’ language on tV.

So here was a black, woman MP complaining about racist hatred on social media being subjected to, er, a ‘storm’ on social media about her use of racist language.

It’ll take a better man than me, Gunga Din (if you can still say that), to pick the bones out of this one.

trevor, it’s over to you.