which we should not have

Amnesty sort of apologizes, while also assuring us how wonderful it is and how not as wonderful everyone else is, especially the people it is sort of apologizing to.

We apologise for the publication of the briefing “A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK.” This document should never have been published, and full responsibility for this error rests with Amnesty International UK.

Well the document didn’t publish itself. What do you mean it should never have been published? Who published it? Was it you? If you published it, why are you now saying it should never have been published? Was it someone else? If so, who? It’s not much of an apology if we can’t tell who is sorry or who did what.

The briefing was taken down within 48 hours of publication, as soon as management were notified of its existence, was not actively promoted, and will not be republished. We have an ongoing internal investigation into how this briefing came to be published.

What do you mean “was taken down”? Who took it down? Why are there no agents in all this; actions but no person or persons taking them? You do realize we can see it, right? We can see how evasive and impersonal it all is, and we’re not impressed. You seem to be talking about a car crash with no cars.

Whilst we do not share the views of all these organisations, we recognise the concerns raised by those labelled as “anti-rights” in the document. To be clear: this labelling does not represent our institutional position, and we apologise for its inclusion. In particular, we apologise to Beira’s Place

Yes we know: because you were going to get your asses sued.

and other groups, which we categorised as gender critical organisations, which we should not have collectively labelled as anti-rights. We have also taken down an earlier more discursive briefing (entitled Like A Snowball) which also referenced a wide range of organisations.

Still hasty, perfunctory, non-specific. I am deeply unimpressed. You’re doing the bare minimum and we can tell you’re scowling and sulking while doing it. You’d much rather be calling us all “anti-rights” again.

AIUK holds itself to the highest standards of research, evidence and editorial oversight in all its publications. We have concluded that this briefing fell significantly short of those standards.

Wut? You are the very best; you have concluded this item was not the very best. That’s what you’ve got? You’re awesome, except this one time you weren’t quite awesome, now let’s change the subject?

I am underwhelmed.

H/t Piglet