iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Its not stupid to say we should keep fighting for what we believe is right. It is stupid to dismiss anyone you disagree with in such a patronising manner. You lose credibility for the better points you make.

000

And the courts pulled against votes for women, so the suffragettes all went home to their domestic happiness and forgot their ideas.

100

Yes! The "campus affair" is the "squids in space" of litfic. Ill-informed dismissive nonsense.

020

Is it Casellas or Casellae?

120

Kev McVeigh @kevmcv.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Not just the authors he published, but the generation of editors he nurtured.

010

What about the mid career genre switch to baboons? Will you lose fans

020

Reposted by Kev McVeigh

Stewart Parsons @libraryfiend.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Simon Clarke was 10 months old at the time of Live Aid so that's some memory he's got going there...

021

Kev McVeigh @kevmcv.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

“Connect a moment with someone on a bus, in the woods, on the porch of an abandoned house, and you find the world you’ve been looking for.” That sums up how Andrea Hairston's works describe community building as organic, unstructured, warm supportive spaces.

073

Kev McVeigh @kevmcv.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Ticket booked. Looking forward to this one

011

Kev McVeigh @kevmcv.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

When Americans ask me what I like best about The Fall... my usual answer is this

000

Kev McVeigh @kevmcv.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

Just thinking, if you haven't done something for 28 years is it really a central part of your culture and traditions?

000

Kev McVeigh @kevmcv.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Good evening Womble, hope you're better soon. I've been reading shorter stuff again, Val McDermid's Queen MacBeth is superb. Belatedly read @neilwilliamson.bsky.social 's creepy Urban horror Charlie Says in the pub yesterday.

021

Kev McVeigh @kevmcv.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

I was invited at two days notice to moderate a discussion with Mike at Lancaster Litfest a few years ago. For all his intimidating intellect he's a generous communicator and makes the job easier.

010

Ok, attribute it to all the sensible people who see the evidence and call it what it is, instead of looking for ways to avoid it. Now fuck off.

000

He would, like most criminals deny it, so what. That doesn't make him less guilty. If there was no evidence you might have a point but this is clear.

100

Ah I see. I'm not sure that's important when the evidence is so clear. The question would be who would deny it was terrorism and why? It fits all standard definitions, national and international. The government and police didn't call Stephen Lawrence's killers racist but the Mail did.

100

I don't understand the question. The act of terrorism would be attributed to the person committing it.

100

So they could do that here. They took the cowards option. And as you know very well, the evidence is so clear that it is simple to say it. You can insist otherwise all night but there is video of him committing a terrorist act, therefore avoiding saying so is irresponsible.

100

That doesn't work. The 9/11 bombers were not charged (for obvious reasons) so by your definition aren't terrorists. Many IRA and UVF killers were charged with murder not terrorism. It's the action that makes them terrorists not the courts

100

You can try to explain why rather than repeat something I've explained is wrong. History is full of people called terrorist without ever being arrested, charged or convicted.

100

The CPS may not use the Terrorism Act but that doesn't mean it isn't Terrorism. Given the establishment reluctance to act on the mobs but jail peaceful protesters i think relying on legal action as a definition is iffy

100

If the evidence is clear, a responsible news outlet is not at risk using the word. That's the point. They have used it for years in other contexts.

100

So do you think he's a terrorist? Let's clarify

100

If he's a terrorist its not libel to call him one. If you think its libel you think he's not a terrorist. And as I explained at the start, the evidence is quite clear. Your argument that violent crime in his past is irrelevant to violent crime now is also odd.

100

You said calling him a terrorist is possibly libellous which implies you don't think he's a terrorist. That's defending him from being called a terrorist

100

I'm not defending him at all. I called him a terrorist remember. You said that was libel possibly

210

Every single outlet mentions it. A history of Violent crime and drug dealing are not insignificant when reporting alleged violent crime. Why are you defending him?

110

So stick the word alleged in their headline. But i disagree that he'd have a credible case because of the actual evidence against him

050

Where's the libel? He's on film committing criminal damage for political purposes. Textbook terrorism definition

280

Went to Vercovicium on Saturday

010

Short stories are great for that

000

You should read his short fiction too. He's a rare example of brilliance in both novels and short fiction

120