I’m playing CoD Ghosts - multiplayer with bots. Not getting the time to game at the moment and 10-minute bursts of entertainment have their place.

Yes; I don’t think there’s much to gain by belittling and dehumanising your political opponent - you risk underestimating (and failing to learn) from them, but you also risk alienating the people you need to persuade to follow you (if a political shift is what you seek).

Articles like this feel like a missed opportunity; it’s a real shame because the author can clearly write.

Littering the piece with emotionally-charged language and pejoratives - while also attempting to dismiss Mr Kirk’s prominence and effectiveness (whatever one may think of him, his methods or his views) as “unremarkable” undermines the article’s credibility and leaves it coming across as a rant. Mr Kirk was killed for his political views; the way this is handled in the article almost comes across as victim-blaming.

The central messages - that the conditions have been set for extremist rhetoric and hate speech to proliferate, that Mr Kirk was but one of many who hold the same views and that there is real concern with how far things have got (with no clear pathway back to politics from the centre) - don’t therefore cut through to as wide an audience as it could.

I don’t follow.

I have been home with my poorly infant. Family and team at work have all been amazing. Child is getting better too.