Do censorship laws need changing?

[Cyclone]

No I wouldn't care to withdraw it. Just dismissing an MP as a nomark is ridiculos without some big knowledge or evidence that makes their constituency irrelevant. Not that he was dismissing our much loved speaker anyway.

Dismissing their opinion without first having an explanation of how they formed it is ridiculous.

Their constituency has very little to do with it IMO, why should the number of Joe Sludges that voted for the person matter? (Not that the speaker is voted into that position).

[Mr Prime]

Dismissing their opinion without first having an explanation of how they formed it is ridiculous.

Their constituency has very little to do with it IMO, why should the number of Joe Sludges that voted for the person matter? (Not that the speaker is voted into that position).

 

You're right, we received no explanation. If someone simply says X is a nomark without any details then it should be dismissed. If a bloke walked up to you in the pub and called you a name then walked off would you pursue him hand wringingly trying to find out his motivations and what you'd possibly done to offend him? Or would you dismiss him as a fool?

[mikem8634]

If someone simply says X is a nomark without any details then it should be dismissed. ...dismiss him as a fool?

 

Like this you mean?

 

To me Prescott is a successful politician with a lifetime of achievements behind him. Yes its fashionable to mock him but the mockers are usually idiots like Littlejohn and the sheep that follow him.

[Mr Prime]

Like this you mean?

 

Do I really need to explain why Littlejohn is a fool? He's a legendary reactionary.

[mikem8634]

Do I really need to explain why Littlejohn is a fool? He's a legendary reactionary.

 

Nope you need to explain your own hypocrisy and/or lack of self-awareness as evidenced in my previous post.

 

Or you could continue to evade it as you just have.

 

Up to you. Don't apply standards to others that you cannot maintain yourself.

[Mr Prime]

Nope you need to explain your own hypocrisy and/or lack of self-awareness as evidenced in my previous post.

 

Or you could continue to evade it as you just have.

 

Up to you. Don't apply standards to others that you cannot maintain yourself.

 

So by not giving a detailed history of Littlejohn before criticising him I'm a hypocrite? Some people don't need their CV read out. If someone on here says they hate Thatcher I don't think its because her favourite colour was green. Have some perspective and don't play the tiresome hypocrisy card.

 

Evade? I've answered every question you've put to me. Your saying I'm evasive is you actually saying you don't like the answer, like people who say the BBC is biased because they don't agree with its point of view.

[mikem8634]

So by not giving a detailed history of Littlejohn before criticising him I'm a hypocrite? Some people don't need their CV read out. If someone on here says they hate Thatcher I don't think its because her favourite colour was green. Have some perspective and don't play the tiresome hypocrisy card.

 

Evade? I've answered every question you've put to me. Your saying I'm evasive is you actually saying you don't like the answer, like people who say the BBC is biased because they don't agree with its point of view.

 

Evasion it is then. Don't apply standards to others that you cannot maintain yourself.

 

I'll even rephrase it for you to give you one last chance.

 

Please explain the difference between this

 

If someone simply says X is a nomark without any details then it should be dismissed.

 

and this

 

Yes its fashionable to mock him but the mockers are usually idiots like Littlejohn and the sheep that follow him.

[Mr Prime]

Evasion it is then. Don't apply standards to others that you cannot maintain yourself.

 

It's not evasion at all and you don't set the agenda of how I act.

 

Normal people know that if you say you dislike a 'superstar' politician or writer its obvious why, in the case of Bercow less so. Disimssing a tabloid hack isn't the same as simply dismissing an MP with thousands of votes without reasons on a whim.

[Cyclone]

You're right, we received no explanation. If someone simply says X is a nomark without any details then it should be dismissed. If a bloke walked up to you in the pub and called you a name then walked off would you pursue him hand wringingly trying to find out his motivations and what you'd possibly done to offend him? Or would you dismiss him as a fool?

 

I would dismiss his comments, but should a randomer who overhears his comment assume the same? Probably not, they should probably just mind their own business since they've no idea why the guy dislikes me.

Are you actually John Berscrow?

[mikem8634]

It's not evasion at all and you don't set the agenda of how I act.

 

Normal people know that if you say you dislike a 'superstar' politician or writer its obvious why, in the case of Bercow less so. Disimssing a tabloid hack isn't the same as simply dismissing an MP with thousands of votes without reasons on a whim.

 

You make some very strange assumptions and appear to believe the world is as it exists in you head.

 

You are both entitled to and certainly welcome to your own opinion.

 

Anyway I'm off out for a coffee. Good luck.