Jhumps84 wrote:
We both made an argument based on factual things and opinions, and i was wrong on this occasion, but i tried to look at it from another angle. Except i didn't abuse someone to to make a political point and then discredit the person making their side of things based on their experience by accusing them of "bluster" because that's what the believe of a certain type of person. Did i say they know fuck all because they've never been in the houses of parliament or seen how politics works and used this to further own political views based on an existing hatred (and i have no evidence of that either to make that kind of claim), no i didn't, because people are entitled to an opinion. When the opinion becomes about the person themselves, rather than the policy or the opinion then i'm afraid that goes too far and i will not back down on that.
To be honest I thought your tone was pretty patronising from the off - explaining that the press can be biased and so on - but I tried to stick to the facts. It was a bit frustrating when you didn't seem to be reading the evidence I offered you properly but I stuck to the facts. Saying that your work experience should count as form of fact checking really pissed me off though.
You obviously have, or at least had, a job that provided some insight into Westminster and politicians' lives but you seem to think nobody else might have any skills, experience or knowledge that might mean they're well equipped to make a point too. For example, how do you know I've never been in the Houses of Parliament? Could it be possible that I have an inside view on the media? I might even have direct personal experience of press bias. There are lots of people who post on here who have done jobs that put them in a very good position to argue in an informed way about a range of topics. It's also sometimes the case that being too close to something, or directly involved in it, skews your view.
As far as the idea that any opinion of someone like Rees-Mogg has to be based on policies alone, that is just ridiculous. He followed up the dossing around by abusing parliamentary privilege to slander a consultant neurologist and then had to apologise. Where does that arrogance come from? It isn't from his policies. It's from his wealthy background, exclusive schooling, elitist university education and enormous private wealth generated by playing the markets using inside information gathered from the political sphere.
I could also mention that his stated policy is pro-Brexit but he moved his business to Dublin, possibly for tax reasons but it also shows he's happy to keep his own affairs in the EU.
Finally, you've clearly got me down as somebody who hates all MPs but I don't. A lot of them are corrupt, expenses fiddling crooks who should be locked up. That's without considering all the 'outside interests' that tend to involve taking payments from companies who hope to influence events or at least gather intelligence. Others, and I'd include some Tories in this, are hard working dedicated public servants. Look at Ruth Smeeth that Mr I mentioned. I don't agree with everything she says but you can't fault her record for hard work, clean expenses claims or outside interests. I said what I said about Rees-Mogg because if the Tory leadership believe what they say about standards in public office they should be disciplining him on a number of counts not hounding out anyone who disagrees with them on Brexit.
Login
Register
FAQ
