mossdog Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 They are probably criticising him because he is "Red Andy," and you know what the rightwing thugs on this website are like.Why are people called thugs if they choose to disagree with your posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordonb Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Back to the original op who says he is "high class"? Equally wasn't the whistle blower Ian Hislop? If you wan't to talk class have a look at his past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I'm not angry. I liked this man and valued and trusted his judgement. He seemed right and up-standing. Now just another lier. In what way has he lied? What specific lie has he perpetrated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 They are probably criticising him because he is "Red Andy," and you know what the rightwing thugs on this website are like. Indeed, phrases like "lapdog" and "poodle"... oh hang on, that's you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Who really cares. The man made a mistake and he sought to protect his family as a result. Is it really in the public interest who sleeps with who?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Who really cares. The man made a mistake and he sought to protect his family as a result. Is it really in the public interest who sleeps with who?!I don't imagine anyone really cares that he betrayed his wife with another woman, that's a situation for the three of them to deal with. Don't you think it's more the hypocrisy of someone who makes a living out of pontificating about and prying into other people's lives and business seeking to protect himself from similar actions by his peers that doesn't sit right with people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I don't imagine anyone really cares that he betrayed his wife with another woman, that's a situation for the three of them to deal with. Don't you think it's more the hypocrisy of someone who makes a living out of pontificating about and prying into other people's lives and business seeking to protect himself from similar actions by his peers that doesn't sit right with people? There is an element of hypocrisy, I don't think even Marr denies that. My argument is, what right do we have to know what other people do in their private life?! What Mr Marr did had no bearing on the general public so why should it become public knowledge. I am not agreeing with what he did, but surely he has a right to protect his family from his failings. My only problem with the so called super injunctions is that they are being abused as far as, they are being used to stop genuine public interest stories being published, and that is not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I don't imagine anyone really cares that he betrayed his wife with another woman, that's a situation for the three of them to deal with. Don't you think it's more the hypocrisy of someone who makes a living out of pontificating about and prying into other people's lives and business seeking to protect himself from similar actions by his peers that doesn't sit right with people? I don't agree. He might not agree with people being able to obtain superinjunctions, but as the law stands they are. So he has every right to work within the law. I might not agree with, for example, Child Tax Credits (or whatever they're called), but it wouldn't make me a hypocrite to claim them. The law applies to all. He would be a hypocrite if he were saying "Celebrities should not take out superinjunction even if they are allowed to", while he was doing it himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I don't agree .. I might not agree with, for example, Child Tax Credits (or whatever they're called), but it wouldn't make me a hypocrite to claim them.You are, of course, free to disagree with anyone, at any time. hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s) n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. 2. An act or instance of such falseness. If you profess not to hold with something and then take advantage of the very thing you don't agree with, that would be hypocrisy of the highest order! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 You are, of course, free to disagree with anyone, at any time. hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s) n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. 2. An act or instance of such falseness. If you profess not to hold with something and then take advantage of the very thing you don't agree with, that would be hypocrisy of the highest order! Exactly. (To the definition, not your conclusion). So, if he has said something like "I think it is wrong for private individuals to take out superinjunctions", then he is a hypocrite. However, if he has only said something like "I don't think people should be allowed to take out superinjunctions", then he is not. There is a difference. Unless he has actually said something like "I think it is wrong for private individuals to take out superinjunctions", then there is nothing in the quoted definition that would make him a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.