And another thing…

Test case. Is accusing you (or indeed, because I know you to be a man of principle) of hypocrisy, or of deliberately misleading the British Public – for example by presenting previously announced spending as new money – still be allowed?

Terminological inexactitude? Being economical with the actualite? Are these still OK?

Or we could use the Richard Brinsley Sheridan technique. When told to withdraw his accusation that an opponent was a liar he said:

“I called the honourable member a liar it is true and I am sorry for it. The honourable member may place the punctuation where he wishes.”

If we have to use Parliamentary language does this mean we have to use the third person, for example, you do not appear to have as much intellectual capability of my hamster would be deleted, but the Honourable Gentleman does not have as much intellectual capability as my hamster would be allowed. Not, of course, that I am suggesting for one minute that that applies to you:-)

You may compare your hamster’s intellectual abilities to my own by addressing me directly rather than in the third person, if you wish.

The dishonesty tag is working because it is true. And it hurts. Is there any point coming back here? What else will you ban? Is any criticism of Brown to be banned next? the government after that? then any criticism of the Labour party?

This is Labour all over, if you don’t like it you ban it, change the law, or just have those involved arrested on trumped up charges if all else fails.

You don’t get it, and that’s why you are going to lose, and BAD.

It’s all very well asking people not to resort to childish name calling – and calling someone a liar is a serious business.

However, surely the art of good communication – and of connecting to your readers – is to talk simply and accurately. If someone tells an untruth, then you should be allowed to tell it like it is…

If I said Balls was telling the truth on Toady this morning, and then decided I was a liar for saying it, would that be allowed?

I enjoy reading your blog Tom. I don’t always agree with it, but it is always engaging.

Unfortunately, however, describing The Spectator’s provision of the facts as vulgar abuse marks a low point I thought you’d never sink to.

A government minister picks up the phone to harrass and bully a journalist and you mark out the journalist as being guilty of vulgar abuse?

It beggars belief.

It’s not a good situation, but when you’ve got a Government introducing fiction to its truths, what are you supposed to do?

Calling a decrease – an increase, is just plain wrong. What are you supposed to do when they’re allegedly “increasing” public spending by -7% under their own figures?

A negative increase! They’ve invented new figures, axises, and new rules for mathmatics.

If a 7% cut is an increase, I’m a candlestick.

So saying that someone “uttered an untruth” or is “factually incorrect” or “deviates from accuracy in their statements” or “is attempting verisimilitude but is failed”, are these OK.

The retrospective deletion seems a bit silly, may leave gaps in the comments resulting in a visitor gaining a false impression.

[...] 2005 (4)February 2005 (2)January 2005 (4)December 2004 (1)November 2004 (3) Tom Harris is banning anyone from calling Gordon Brown a liar on his blog. Truly effing pathetic: JOHN Rentoul makes a good point [...]

Gordon Brown is a feckin’ eejit – he’s a Rt. Hon. man.

(‘hinks: that should be OK – very PC).

Ye Olde Terminological Inexactitudes….

I would never call Gordon Brown a liar.

He’s just a man who would not recognise the truth if a Labour Minister spoke it.

Tom, in your post you used the words ‘feckin eejits’.

Seems to me that is a pretty honest description of yourself….leaving out the plural ’s’ of course.

I can’t call Obama Beach a liar?

How about an incompetent, petty muppet whose quest for power has destroyed this country’s economy for years to come?

And if that’s not allowed, can I at least keep calling him Obama Beach? It’s not catching on but it keeps me happy at least.

***REDACTED***

Tom are you avoiding your last blog on cameron?

anyway here is what you said and after that is my response:

roger benstone: “when did david cameron say there would be riots on the street?”

yesterday in the House of Commons: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5690836/Deceit-over-cuts-wil-lead-to-riots-says-David-Cameron.html

“didnt hear the labour party shouting out ‘no’ when people took to rioting over the poll tax”

Maybe because you weren’t listening, roger. neil kinnock repeatedly condemned the rioters at the time, referring to them as “toytown revolutionaries”.

“by the way if any of the bloggers who want to rip the mick out of dyslexic people…”

No-one on this site has made fun of you for being dyslexic. One commenter made a joke at your expense because you used “teen text” instead of actual words, but that was before you wrote about your condition. Or do you think that everyone should asusme that everyone else who uses such text shortcuts are dyslexic?

However, feel free to be offended if that’s your bag. As I’ve written on this site before, people should be free to feel offended, just as they should feel free to offend
—————————————-

tom…sorry i think u will find the word is assume not as you have written ‘asusme’…i assume u r not taking the mick?

offended…no tom…looks like u r though with dave camerons outlook on life under labour…

he is just juding the nations feelings and he has got them spot on…something your party has completely and utterly failed to do.

as for riots on the streets clearly you should have done your research as you have quoted that dave cameron stated this in yesterdays house of commons….he actually made the suggestion (i and many others will simply take it as a generalisation of how people may feel rather like saying to someone ‘i will go up the wall if they do this’…yet to meet anyone who has actually ‘gone up the wall’) at his WEEKLY NEWS CONFERENCE! oops…

also this is his statement:

Mr Cameron said: “You go in to an election pretending you are not going to have to make spending reductions, then you have to make them, and then you really do have riots on the streets because people do not have faith in their politicians.”

let people make up their mind if that really says that people should go and act violently against the goverment….

i mean you dont say they are wrong to do it in iran do you?

or china and Tiananmen Square

glad to hear you dont mind people being offended can i accept that you are telling us you advocate the offending of anyone…?

so if i offend a black person, homosexual, muslim etc i am okay then and i wont lose my job, be arrested or anything like that?

because strangely under your goverment that it is now illegal to do such things and can actually lead to someones arrest, as seen below

http://lisnews.org/node/22230

on the labour issue of the poll tax i agree mr. kinnock was against the riots but clearly labour thought it was okay to break the law and of course set an example to others to do so as Terry Fields, Labour MP for Liverpool Broadgreen did?

as for nicky the offender on previous blog…still cant quite what he meant about me being on ‘teenager sites’?

perhaps you could get him to explain?

now tom…and i respect your views and your opinion but if u r going to write things then at least let people respond to it as well….

Nah, can’t be bothered.

…collapses in laughter…

Tom, you are too good.

Now, about those fecking tickets…

If it’s yellow and quacks then it’s a duck.

If Balls has his mouth open and there are noises coming out of it then I think we can all agree…

Can we say that someone ‘misled’ through his/her back teeth?

And if we are doing things in the ways of the house, then I can’t commit libel. Comforting to know.

Gordon called Cameron a liar (or words to that effect) and then refused to apologise.

http://tinyurl.com/gordonmisleading

May I humbly suggest that the Prime minister is rarely right, clearly not honourable and only a gentleman in the physical sense of the word.

Off topic, from tomorrow will you be required to declare advertising income from this site ‘as a second job’? Or do you have to be on somebody’s payroll for that to be required?

Just wondering.

Use parliamentary protocol? In the same way that Brown and Balls did today whilst visiting a school in a Tory MP’s constituency?

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/06/how-not-to-be-prime-ministerial-on-a-pm-visit.html

Any relationship Gordon Brown has with the truth is completely accidental.

Seriously? You deleted my comment? Fair enough, it’s your blog, your rules, etc, but I genuinely wasn’t trying to be arsey about it – just debating the post topic as every other post does – as I said, I am a fan of this blog. Still, your decision. Fair enough… just surprised and disappointed.

I just hit a link on the Spectator blog and arrived here. Who is this chap Harris – apart from an apparent wally,that is?

How the hell do you justify calling Cameron a ‘clown’ in one blog post and then in the very next post manage to crusify him for petty name calling (which happens to be accurate!)????

@ Ben

It’s called irony.

ID Cards – Dead

Post Office privatisation – Dead

MP’s Pensions – Killed before it even got into committee

Am I the only one who suspects that Brown is considering crossing the floor?

Glad you are joining the ranks of your party wanting control of what people say. Finding a bit hot are you Tom.
Your blog tone has completley changed from open comment to one of desporation to win at any price.Panic has set in at all levels in your party even you.But i am sure you tell the truth as you see it.

It wont work Tom. Lets wait for Norwich.

Gordon Brown is a total ███████ █████ ████████ who couldn’t ████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ████ █████████ on it.

I think that’ll make it past the censors.

Would a discussion on whether Brown will end up in Bolgia 5 or Bolgia 10 be permitted? Although perhaps round 1 or 2 of the ninth circle would be more appropriate.

It’s simple.

Anyone who calls somebody a liar, or anything else for that matter, but can’t back the statement up with facts, says more about themselves than the other person/s. Why turn them into martyrs by removing their statement?

Good news for Labour at Norwich.
Brown will not visit Norwich North before the bye election.

By the way Tom, what is the point of a national ID card that you dont need to have.I would NEVER have had one anyway.
Come on scrap it.

Andy

Where can I find this yellow duck.

the honourable member for Glasgow South has inadvertently mislead the public. there we go, thats the parliamentary way of say you’re a …..

If people are lying, the Spectator have a right to call them on it. Gordon Brown and Ed Balls are clearly trying to deceive the public and journalists should not let them get away with it.

@ roger benstone: I will take this opportunity take enormously disproportionate offence about you assuming I must be male. However I agree that questioning why a fully grown man who votes Tory would want to write ‘u r’ as shorthand for ‘you are’ (as kids of my son’s age sometimes do – he’s 12) is totally outrageous and just as unacceptable as racism and homophobia.

Actually, I wouldn’t have bothered commenting on your post or your spelling, only you had a moan at Tom for only spending (you claimed) 7 seconds on his reply, when you felt entitled for him to devote more time carefully considering your acute political analysis. I thought, likewise, you could take the time and effort to type ‘you’ instead of ‘u’. As Tom says, it isn’t automatically assumed that everyone who uses text speak is dyslexic. That’s my final word on the subject.

I meant to say: ‘I will take this opportunity *to* take enormously disproportionate offence … blah blah.’ Hope that’s clear, Roger.

We now have the official line from Lord Mandlebum: it’s not lying, it’s telling a deliberate untruth, apparently.

There is a God.

Is that a lie? Or simply error?

After all, it’s a statement which is not based on fact, cannot be proved, is contrary to reason and, in fact, is incapable of substantiation by any means.

Seems to me it fulfils many of the definitions of lying and most of those of error.

@Liberanos
There is a God.

Is that a lie? Or simply error?

Neither.

It is just a fact.

@ Chris’ Wills.

If it’s a fact, then there’s no merit in faith.

@Liberanos
If it’s a fact, then there’s no merit in faith

Not so, the idea that faith requires ignorance is a fallicy.

Faith need not be blind, the apostles were faithful unto death and they knew the risen Christ.

In its normal context faith is a strong version of trust.

Having faith in the Lord means that you trust the Lord.

@Liberanos

As an example.

Tom has faith in the essential goodness of his dear leader. In other words he trusts that his dear leader is a good man.

In this case, his faith is delusional but it needn’t be without merit (he might be made a minister again, but I doubt it).

Cheerfully diverging but what the hell:

“Not so, the idea that faith requires ignorance is a fallicy.”

The Judeo-Christian concept of God is either by design or happenstance, a non rational object. That is to say that it can neither be proved nor disproved by it’s very nature. Ergo – God = neither fact nor non fact and is accessable only through faith.

@Falco
The Judeo-Christian concept of God is either by design or happenstance,

I’ll just stick with the Christian concept of God.
Yes, Christianity (in its various forms) can be seen as a Jewish sect, however it does differ markedly from standard forms of Judaism (for one it proclaims that the redemeer/messiah has come).

Never understood why people keep on saying/writing Judeo-Christian as if it added any value (probably trying to be inclusive).

a non rational object. That is to say that it can neither be proved nor disproved by it’s very nature.

Well it sort of depends on your pre-suppositions. If God exists then as a concept it is ipso facto rational.

To say it can be neither proved nor disproved is a false or poorly articulated statement. Especially as you do not know its nature (neither do I, as it happens).

If you mean that it is not subject to study using methodological naturalism/materialism (i.e. modern Science) then you may have a point.

You’ll also find that the existance of God has been personally proved to the satsfaction of many people.

Ergo – God = neither fact nor non fact and is accessable only through faith.

Personal revelation is what most BACs claim.

Faith means to trust, it isn’t some ineffable substance, well no more than trust is. The faith is founded on a belief in God and the revealed word and/or church interpretations of them. It isn’t what leads to the belief, the belief comes via grace.

An interesting example is the adversary (satan as it is sometimes called).

Assuming the veracity of Christianity (pick whichever sect/church you prefer) then satan knows that God exists, satan knows that God’s word is true (in that sense he trusts and has faith that God’s words are true and will be acted out) yet satan is not what we normally mean by a believer.

Chris’ Wills seems very secure in his choice of fantasy friends to tell him how to live his life. Which is nice.

Personally I’ll be sticking with my magic 8-ball…

@Chris’ Wills.

So do I understand you correctly?

Faith is belief in that in which there is absolutely no cause to have any doubt?

Doesn’t sound the slightest bit meritorious to me.

I’d have thought faith would require belief in that which WASN’T a known and provable fact.

Or are you saying that the essence of your kind of faith is not believing in a god’s existence…that’s a given..but that he’s a good one rather than a bad?

Other than that, where’s the merit?

“To say it can be neither proved nor disproved is a false or poorly articulated statement. Especially as you do not know its nature (neither do I, as it happens).”

I think the statement was fairly well articulated but I dissagree with the truth value you give it. We do know that the Christian God, (I’ll drop the Judeo if you like but this applies to both), is omnipresent, invisible and intangable. You cannot prove or disprove the presence of an invisible, intangable thing because there is no possible mechanism to do so.

“If you mean that it is not subject to study using methodological naturalism/materialism (i.e. modern Science) then you may have a point.”

Pretty much. It is only those things that are possible to study using such methods that we can claim to have knowledge of and God does not fall into this catagory, (this has not stopped many people trying, see the ontological argument). If you do not have knowledge but are convinced that something is there anyway, then you have faith.

@richard
You join a lot of people who trust in Magic 8 Balls.

Yes I’m secure in what I believe and my friendly 6ft rabbit is always full of helpful tips and advise.

Though feel free to dole out snark and enjoy your nihilism.

@Liberanos
So do I understand you correctly?

Faith is belief in that in which there is absolutely no cause to have any doubt?

No, as I pointed out faith is trust.
Someone can have faith in many things, in that sense. It isn’t required to be blind trust/faith though it can be.

You’re mixing up faith and belief, they are different things.
I could believe that the UK had the ability and general desire to do good and have little faith in it so using its ability/wealth.

Doesn’t sound the slightest bit meritorious to me.

I’d have thought faith would require belief in that which WASN’T a known and provable fact.

Or are you saying that the essence of your kind of faith is not believing in a god’s existence…that’s a given..but that he’s a good one rather than a bad?

As I’m an Agnostic Theist; I agree with Falco that it is impossible to prove empirically that God exists or doesn’t exist (it is not a question subject to scientific investigation, though some claims made by religious people may be so subject).

I’m not a BAC and claim no personal revelation.

@Falco
Pretty much. It is only those things that are possible to study using such methods that we can claim to have knowledge of and God does not fall into this catagory,

So you believe that only those thigs subject to modern scientific testing can be known?

This is a belief in positivism and materialism/naturalism; neither of which is subject to scientific proof.

You may be correct, but your chosen method of testing cannot substantiate your belief so it falls under your own criteria.

(this has not stopped many people trying, see the ontological argument). If you do not have knowledge but are convinced that something is there anyway, then you have faith.

No, you believe.

Just as many scientists believe in string theory and the existance of multiple invisible dimensions. They may well be correct and we may exist in a multiverse. They may have many good reasons for their believe but it isn’t subject to scientific testing.

They believe it and have faith that it will eventually work.

@ Chris’ Wills

“many scientists believe in string theory and the existance of multiple invisible dimensions”.

Ah, but the difference is that scientists don’t believe blindly, they postulate and seek proof. When none is found or when the proof is dispositive they change their opinions…

With religion you start by imagining the outcome and then ignoring any proof to the contrary.