SOMETIMES it’s easy to forget that people who comment on blogs are only a tiny proportion of the total readership. And unless you remember that, it’s easy to imagine that the comments left are representative, not only of your readership, but of the public at large.
David Cairns, with a mixture of amusement and resignation, regularly asks me for the latest example of the entirely inappropriate and humourless comment in response to an entirely non-political item I’ve posted. And there are always plenty. If I write about Doctor Who, or something personal about me or my family, or any other subject utterly unrelated to politics, the usual suspects emerge from the woodwork to have a go at the government.
What is wrong with these people?
They’re clearly very angry. All the time. And they crave some form of outlet for their anger. Blogs – their own or other people’s – are, of course, the ideal medium, especially since their local newspapers stopped agreeing to publish their regular diatribes.
They will claim (perhaps even in this thread) that their anger is caused by the Labour government which has been so inept/corrupt/cynical/dishonest/evil that anger is the only possible response.
Now, it’s dangerous to analyse an individual from his comments on a blog. But since it’s all I’ve got to go on, I can’t help drawing my own conclusions. And it seems that these very, very angry people will always be angry at something, and probably always have been angry. And unhappy. They can’t understand the world around them and they don’t understand why the only people they encounter who are as angry as they are about the same things are others who dwell in the blogosphere.
They all claim that “everyone” they know is as angry (at Labour) as they are, but they’re not. For instance, take the Lisbon Treaty. If you read the comments on this blog, you get a picture of a nation on the verge of violent revolution, of a nation about to take its revenge on Labour by utterly destroying us as a party at the first electoral opportunity. Labour faces not just electoral defeat, they claim, but permanent oblivion.
Yet despite media mythology, MPs are generally in touch with what their constituents think. It’s in our interests to listen to the people whose support we’ll be asking for in a few short weeks. And in all the doorsteps I’ve been on in 2009, not a single voter has mentioned either the Lisbon Treaty or the smoking ban.
There are two types of those blog commenters who spew out an uninterrupted and mostly irrelevant stream of poison: those who use the anonymity of the internet to exaggerate their views, almost as a release mechanism, and who would never say such things to my face because they were brought up properly and, like most people, have a basic concept of decency and civility.
And then there are the others who, I have no doubt, speak in their private lives in exactly the same way that they write on blogs. They’re the scary ones. They’re the ones who genuinely believe everyone around them is as utterly obsessed with the EU, the smoking ban, and the imminence of Labour’s police state as they themselves are.
Their families worry about them. And they don’t get invited to dinner parties.
I write this because I’ve had to close down a thread on a post I wrote yesterday. It was a short piece about some Normandy veterans to whom I’d presented the Normandy Bar in recognition of their service to both Britain and France in June 1944. I had hoped (naively, it turns out) that readers might take the opportunity to leave their own tribute to such men.
Instead, after reading more stream-of-consciousness bile about (yes, you guessed it) the government, I took the rare but inevitable step of closing the thread altogether. Ironically, the people who left the vicious and inappropriate comments are the same people who would probably claim that they believe it’s important to honour our veterans!
I try not to let this rubbish get to me, but I was sorely disappointed that even this subject was seen as fair game to the obsessives and cranks. But I suppose that’s what defines them – they’re obsessive and they’re cranks.
It’s enough to put you off blogging. I do value the comments that are left here. I accept that, as a blogging Labour MP I invite criticism, and the overwhelming majority of even the most critical comments are published. But it is soul-destroying to have to plough my way through so much guff and nonsense every day, especially in response to non-political posts. Maybe that’s their aim – to destroy my soul (“serves him right for writing a blog which supports this evil government…”).
Maybe I’ll have to introduce a new rule: only comments relevant to the original post will be published. Except that would mean deleting 90 per cent of the comments…
But I will cling to my belief that the people who read this blog and who choose not to leave comments are just like the general populace: normal, moderate, sensible, decent, and holding political views which may or may not be vindicated at the next election, but which aren’t worth falling out with anyone over.














Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 12:27 am
I rarely comment because of all the crazy – some people aren’t worth arguing with since it’s obvious they’re not going to change their minds and you’ll have to agree to disagree. Of course, then they disagree on that, and you end up just walking away whilst they ramble about their freedom to disagree and forcing them to agree with me IS JUST WHAT HITLER WOULD HAVE DONE…
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 12:29 am
Might I direct you, and your readers to today’s blog by David Fagan, on the subject of anonymous blogging.
http://davidfagan.co.uk/?p=213
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 12:30 am
Easy for you to say on your taxpayer-funded expenses, Tom. ;o)
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 12:41 am
I’m one of the baddies who didn’t play ball. My bad?
We read to the end of this post to discover that you base what you think the public wants, not on what people who tell you think, but on the others who don’t say anything.
What a great way to govern! And if it all goes pear-shaped, you can blame the majority who didn’t say a cheep.
And for the record, I have spoken to politicians face-to-face in uncompromising terms. That is actually *normal* behaviour in today’s circumstances. Saying nothing while your country goes down the plug hole is not normal in the slightest. But I know the fear that is out there. People tell me how they feel, but they won’t tell you in case it gets them into trouble.
Let’s not fall out – let’s learn from the things people tell us. We can’t learn a lot from people who tell us nothing.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 12:51 am
Your blog is not alone….you should see the UKIP/BNP nutters spouting rubbish in the comment sections on Spectator Coffee House and Conservative Home.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 12:51 am
You are a vile evil person and a member of a corrupt evil party and the EU is going to take over our lives and… joking. I love this blog, don’t let silly people dishearten you! Keep up the good work.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 12:53 am
Tom with all due respects mate but I think you have mainly got the wrong end of the stick mate.
Mostly they are just taking the p.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 1:04 am
Spot on. And worth saying. Happy Christmas!
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 1:13 am
I’m always sorry to rediscover, over and over again, that people manage to be as thick online as they can be in person. I hope it doesn’t put you off blogging; cyberspace needs intelligent commentary to offset the drivel. I don’t personally share your political affiliations, but you write a damn fine blog, so know that cynicism isn’t a complete epidemic!
I think I will make a point of commenting more often in future…:)
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 1:19 am
What is really sad is that, having met you, it could just be possible that one or more of your Normandy veterans or their proud families, might decide to take a wee look at your blog, in case you decided to mention them.
I think yours is a most valuable blog, because you show the human side of politics in all its complexities. You let us see glimpses of your own private life, which encourages your readers to see politicians as real people. How many of even your most angry commenters exclude you personally from their hatred of Labour/all politicians? But I don’t suppose you’re unique in being an MP with a wide range of interests and a good sense of humour.
I’ve occasionally wondered how you can be bothered to keep on putting up with all the repetitive negativity and anger. I’ve all but given up reading or posting comments because so many people don’t seem interested in following the debate, or they write the same dreary, predictable criticisms, or they turn on anyone who might appear to still support Labour, chucking insults at total strangers, rather than offering reasoned discussion and argument. Out here in the real world that I live in, most people couldn’t give a kipper about what most of your angry brigade get so steamed up about.
Still, you could see yourself as an alternative therapist, offering anger release sessions.
Just about the only thing that to look forward to in the not altogether certain prospect of a Cameron government, would be to see how long it would take for all those who seem to see a Tory win as the solution to so many of our/their problems, to get angry again because their own lives don’t suddenly change. (And yes, I know that not all the angry brigade on here are Tories. And I’ve read the list of all the reasons this government have made them so angry.)
Happy Christmas, by the way!
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 1:38 am
I was going to make an attempt at being funny and do exactly what you were criticising, then I read that you had had to remove the blog about Normandy veterans and shared your ‘you couldn’t make it up’.
Your blogs are incredibly valuable for several reasons, which, if it wasn’t so long past the bewitching hour (am I allowed to say bewitching hour) I would elaborate more. Just take my word for it.
I, and many others like me, read blogs, many of which I never leave a comment on. So yes, your blogs are read by many anonymous internet users.
Kerry McCarthy had a problem once where she had to start approving comments. She is another Labout MP who I have a lot of respect for, for which I have been criticised quite strongly on certain forums, and even felt that I became invisible to past online friends.
I don’t care Tom, because people like you and Kerry have become part of my daily routine. Yes, I am, as you know by now, a smoking, drinking, overweight atheist who cannot bear to look at my PM. I am not however, and neither are many of your fans, yes, that’s it Tom, fans, obsessive about attacking your party and some of the despicable members and laws they have engendered.
You are Tom Harris, a very nice Scotsman (and there are not many of those about). The fact that you are a Labour MP is secondary – at least you are not SNP.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 2:25 am
Firstly, let me state my complete and total opposition to the overwhelming majority of Labour’s policies. And my distaste at their actions in Government, and by tacit acknowledgement of the fact you are a Labour MP, your actions.
You are, from all appearances I’ve seen, a mostly decent man. Sure, I disagree with most of your politics, but I’m sure you, like myself and most other politically active people in Scotland, have at heart the best interests of Scotland, and her people. Most of the time. Sometimes you’ll engage in political manoeuvring, either at a party or personal level, but that’s the way the game is played; if you’re not in power you can’t do much to make things “better”.
I also have Scotland and her people’s best interests at heart, and believe you are “misguided”. One day, you’ll come around to the SNP’s message, I hope.
The Nutters on the other hand, are for the most part NOT working for the good of Scotland. They’re working on their own personal little crusade and it is all they care about . Once they’ve marked you as the enemy, nothing you do will persuade them that you’re not a child-eating demon that will plunge the Earth into a living hell.
Every party attracts the fanatics and the one-issue-nutters, be it the radical fundamental-independence brigade who think the SNP have “sold out” and would quite like to see tanks rolling down Buchanan Street, fighting an armed uprising, or the socialist-fringe that still wonder why Labour haven’t re-nationalised *everything* and put it’s political opponents in a gulag, or the ultra-right wingers that would like to see Dave dance the hemp fandango and see the BNP as a bit tame…
Personally, I ignore them. Engaging with them seems to only wind them up more…
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 2:55 am
You read every comment before publishing them, so why are you publishing the bile? Do you have some strange notion that a blog full of right-wing nonsense is somehow more attractive? Is it a free speech thing (yet you do have a line that you won’t allow to be crossed, right)?
Whatever the reason, it’s a deluded policy which the creator of Wordpress (and many others) long since recognised.
You’ve heard of the broken windows theory about crime, right? Well it applies to blog and newspaper comments too! Summary of a very long article here: http://www.ythree.com/?p=381
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 6:47 am
It just goes to show, you can’t be too careful…
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 6:49 am
i often disagree with your politics but find your comments often quite interesting.
i like it when pollies of any party state what they want and think rather than sticking to a party line. that is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign that people are allowed to have an opinion.
as an example, if the tv debates were between labour and the tories, then tavish would be taking a different view to his current one that the largest party in scotland should not be represented equally in scottish coverage of any debate.
after all if we are REAL, brown and cameron are the only guys who can be PM, although we vote at constituency level for an individual and not for a president/pm. (except in orkney and shetland apparently, tavish.)
it is not just the snp i think who have been wronged; with ukip getting more votes than labour last time out i think it is a tad unfair they are not in the mix either, as their viewpoint would be very different to the beige line on europe taken by the 3 stooges.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 7:34 am
I am probably one of the people you are refering to Tom. I would just point out just 2 things that have made me so upset with Labour. Before I retired I was making sure that arrangements were ok for my wife. If I died she would get 66% of my company pension and 100% of my Serps.
I hade made my arrangememts on trust of a Labour government. Brown then announced that the serps pass over to a widow would be cut by 50% so my wife will not get what I had planned. I now was not earning enough to make extra provision.
I found that move by him indicated fully what kind of person he is.
The other was the promise to hold a referendum on the EU again it tells you all you need to know.
I could go on about the 10p tax, changing the banking rules, selling the gold, stealth tax. the list is endless. I think the problem is Tom that you cannot face up to any of these things and just pass us off as nutters , some may be are, but i can assure you many are not. Is is labours ability to turn a deaf ear to these things that has caused the problem.
Bottom line for me is that Labour is not fit to govern it does not posess the skills or honesty required.
I do wish you and your family a Happy Christmas.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 7:44 am
The other thing is of course Tom is that you are the only Labour person we can talk to that appears normal( whatever that is).
So you are bound to be overwhelmed.When I look at the members of the government so many come over to me as fanatics and wierd. You would not even bother talking to them with their starey eyes and strange looks.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 7:47 am
One snail said to the other.
I have been beaten up.
Other snail asked. What happened.
First snail replied, I dont know it all happened so fast.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 7:51 am
It is certainly the case that there are people who think Gordon Brown’s Labour government is “inept/corrupt/cynical/dishonest/evil” etc. But there are also people who feel just as angry, even now, about Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. Perhaps the problem is the anger and has nothing to do with politics. Some people just like to blame others for everything that happens to them.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 7:56 am
As it’s the season of goodwill, time to say something complementary about Labour.
At the risk of being thought an obsessive nutter a number of readers of your excellent blog …… I think the smoking ban is one of the best bits of legislation introduced in my lifetime. Long may it continue.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 8:25 am
Talk is cheap but usually inoffensive; those who berate usually attract derision and are dismissed. I find it bizarre that you should be so alarmed that some are, well, ill mannered. We have all been brutalised by Labour spin since 1994 when TB beat GB for the top job, I have included this link so you can reminisce and wonder where it all went so wrong (http://bit.ly/6d3veN). My guess is spin unwrapped the Labour leadership; it wasted the first term when the government acted like an opposition, obsessed with presentation at the expense of reform and it treated the electorate with contempt when they dare disagree. Finally, any ‘authority’ the Government or Parliament had they lost when we realised they were simply playing the system to max their expense claims, how grubby. And I realise some did not over claim but they were aware of the practice and were complicit in their silence. So rather than complain about the ineffectual voice of a rude vocal minority just quietly leave and let the people of this country try and rebuild it.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 8:25 am
Talk is cheap but usually inoffensive; those who berate usually attract derision and are dismissed. I find it bizarre that you should be so alarmed that some are, well, ill mannered. We have all been brutalised by Labour spin since 1994 when TB beat GB for the top job, I have included this link so you can reminisce and wonder where it all went so wrong (http://bit.ly/6d3veN). My guess is spin unwrapped the Labour leadership; it wasted the first term when the government acted like an opposition, obsessed with presentation at the expense of reform and it treated the electorate with contempt when they dare disagree. Finally, any ‘authority’ the Government or Parliament had they lost when we realised they were simply playing the system to max their expense claims, how grubby. And I realise some did not over claim but they were aware of the practice and were complicit in their silence. So rather than complain about the ineffectual voice of a rude vocal minority just quietly leave and let the people of this country try and rebuild it.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 8:29 am
Hmm
yes there are lots of what I could call “political nutters”.
But on some issues – where trust is grossly abused – I cannot blame people.
I refer specifically to three cases where politicians have acted in a way which – if they were in any other walk of life- would end up in disgrace and /or jail.
Iraq war/Expenses and EU referendum are three glaring examples of politicians behaving in a way that has no place in modern society.
So whilst I may deprecate their actions, I understand people’s frustration and bitterness over them.
Happy Christmas.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 9:00 am
Once again Tom, credit goes to you for being able to say what everybody (who doesn’t need to seek help) is thinking. I would suggest you take it all a bit further and start moderating the looney comments.
If it makes you feel any better, there are such loonies all over the world. No matter where there are comments, the Guardian, Le Monde, El Público, you’ll get raving commenters.
The sensible lot should really up their game to push maniacs back to the fringes. I dare say they’re just not angry enough…
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 9:18 am
Merry Christmas Tom.
There are nutters everywhere – and trolls who get some weird teenage thrill from being contrary/abusive in cyberspace.
Taking the mickey is usually the most effective tactic – there’s no satisfaction in being angry with someone who just won’t take you seriously.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 9:25 am
Tom,
As one of the silent majority who a) read your blog and b) are not insane, may I join the chorus who welcome your commitment to recording your personal experience of public life… I may not always agree with you but I enjoy your writing and am proud to live in a country whose parlamentarians are prepared to expose themselves to the public in such a way. So, thank you.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 9:41 am
Tom, I don’t mean to shameless self-plug, but if you go onto my blog you will find the ‘rules’ clearly explained on the top menu bar – it reads as follows:
“No swearing. No inappropriate, facetious or pointless comments. No abusive remarks. No spamming. That is all.”
Anything that falls outside these parameters gets deleted. No argument, no debate, it gets deleted. I accept any comments which disagree with my views, but as soon as people stray beyond debating the topic at hand I wave bye bye to their comment.
It will make your life so much easier, trust me.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 9:41 am
Personally I don’t think the vast majority of comments on here come anywhere close to matching the real uncontrollable ‘loony tunes’ anger, frequently expressed, by touchline Dads watching their sons play football. Now they’re scary!
I admire your policy of generally approving most comments regardless, but couldn’t an exception have been made on the last post instead?
Rather than close the thread completely thus depriving others of being able to make more considered tributes, just don’t approve the inappropriate ones.
Merry Christmas to you and your family
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 9:52 am
How dare you blame me for this? UTTERLY TYPICAL Za-Nu-Lie-Bour sickening hypocracy. You are an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE and you should stop pretending to be Scottish. And Phil Collins is RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:01 am
Keep up the good work Tom! I rather feel a new years resolution coming on to comment more on blogs like these and try and offer some support in the face of the bile. Plus my girlfriend is a MASSIVE Dr Who fan and rather enjoys your posts on the great man (not that I don’t you understand
)
Wishing you a peaceful Christmas and a happy and productive new year,
Chris.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:10 am
I think it would be a good idea to have a rule that comments should relate to the subject of the post. That’s surely the core purpose of havimg comments on the blog?
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:23 am
Maybe people don’t talk to you about the Lisbon Treaty and Labour reneging on the Referendum because they know it is pointless – Labour isn’t prepared to listen to the electorate when it comes to the EU?
Other than that, I like reading your blogs and try to keep to the point when commenting. I voted you as best Labour blogger on Iain Dale’s poll.
But angry with Labour …. oh yes. Angry because of the complete disregard they have displayed towards the people who put them in office; for the constant petty restrictions, nagging and loss of civil liberties; for deliberately changing the social fabric of England to suit their own agenda and for foisting on us the most unsuitable and incompetent man to ever occupy No.10 and then not having the guts to get rid of him. In consequence, Labour has (once again) wrecked the economy.
I hope that doesn’t count as bile. I hope you consider that I have stayed to the point. I hope you have a Happy Christmas – and continue blogging.
Bye for now
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:25 am
Your diagnosis is one I have made myself – many comment/blog to relieved their feelings of frustration in their personal lives.
The noughties were not uniquely the Angry decade in my view, but they were also an hysterical decade.
Sorry about your Normandy thread, I didn’t feel able to engage with a post on that subject then.
I hope you will distinguish between comments at the start of a thread which should be ON TOPIC, and those later which may take up “points” made which occur later.
Who’s gonna paint all these moustaches on all the snowmen?
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:34 am
HOW CAN YOU ALLOW A POST ON HERE THAT STATES THAT PHIL COLLINS IS RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!
START DELETING IMMEDIATELY.
I’m with Chris Jones. Maybe the milder more rational people should start commenting more frequently. Or maybe you could spend part of your Christmas break working on some colour coding for comments.
Blue: well reasoned argument related to post
Red: Angry rant about Za-Nu-Lie-Bour
Green: Climate change deniers
Purple: extreme religious/end of the world views
Yellow: all anonymous posters
Grey: anti smoking-ban brigade
Pink: comments written in late night alcoholic haze
Orange: witty one liners
Then we could all choose which comments to ignore.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:34 am
Hitler has the same number of letters as Lisbon, Afghanistan only three more than Normandy… of course they’re related.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:43 am
The EU does provoke some splendid vitriol from some people, like no other subject really; mostly ex-Conservatives in the shires in my experience…
Don’t let the crazies get you down though Tom. This blog is one of the few places where you can read a Labour man’s views which sound like they come from a human rather than Labour Party HQ. I don’t generally agree with your views, but they are thought-provoking and thus invaluable.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:55 am
Letters From A Tory – ‘Tom, I don’t mean to shameless self-plug, but if you go onto my blog you will find the ‘rules’ clearly explained on the top menu bar – it reads as follows:
“No swearing. No inappropriate, facetious or pointless comments. No abusive remarks. No spamming. That is all.”’
I’m fairly sure that Tom gets a wider range of comments to his blog than you do. The rules above dissuade me from visiting yours to comfirm this, but that tends to back my view, although some would say that’s circular logic.
That ‘inappropriate’ caveat reminds me of the phrase ‘reasonable force’. When you become the arbiter of what is ‘appropriate’, the boundaries of that term shift about, depending on your subjective view of the poster commenting. The more you take action against people who don’t believe they merit it, the more you have to make those judgement calls, and the more of a reputation you get for being censorious.
Thus endeth the sermon.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:55 am
>> As for Mahatmakaskill!? Is there anything in your comments that comes close to understanding that it was a difficult decision made in good faith?
At the risk of directing this down another path: a) blame Salmond for the Mahatma remark; b) blame Macaskill for covering himself with glory over half-baked Christian theology and opportunistic nationalism.
I cannot see good faith in any party which will erupt in malevolent delight at a conviction for fire-raising, in which no-one died; and then give a standing ovation to someone who released a mass-murderer just to make himself feel warm and fluffy.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 11:23 am
I do not attribute to all my opponents base motives on every occasion.
I believe that Macaskil (Sp?) may have believed that Megrahi should be released on the ground of mercy. I did and would still stand by that difficult decision had I had to have made it.
I look forward to the long overdue further official inquiries into Lockerbie.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 11:45 am
@ Douglas McLellan
“…as you (Tom) can come across as an angry man yourself.”
Possibly. Sometimes. But one man’s anger is another man’s forthright and honest expression of deeply held conviction.
And the apparent iron in one’s soul is often no more than irony in one’s soliloquising!
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 12:30 pm
Well, I left the Guardian’s Comment is Free site because of all the bile and have largely abandoned looking at Scottish blogs because of the even worse levels of vitriol.
I was pleased to discover Mr Harris’s blog because (a) the blogs themselves are usually interesting and (b) the threads are generally good humoured and I came across a few familiar and sympatico posters here – oddly (perhaps) few of whom I agree with politically but who are sane and often funny.
’sane and often funny’ is not too much to ask for perhaps but there you go. The fact is that political threads attract good discussion but are also fly papers for loonies.
The Normandy piece was excellent, but you were right to close it down.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 12:48 pm
No, I think Douglas McLellan makes a fair point – deep and honest convictions though I’m sure Tom has, his mockery of the LibDems, for example, often crosses the line from amusing to awkward when he makes it personal.
I freely admit I am completely biased – I quite like the LibDems and am considering voting for them – but I can have a laugh about them too. I’m not insecure about my political allegiance or seeking affirmation from Tom, and ome of his anti-LibDem posts have made me grin ear-to-ear. But the part of me that makes moral judgements says that sometimes Tom does cross the line – and it wouldn’t matter if he was pillorying Clegg, or Cameron, or Brown, or whoever, it just gets a bit awkwardly personal.
Remember when the govt was defeated over the Gurkhas? That was followed by a rather unbecoming blog post. He apologised, much to his credit, but it left me a little disappointed that he let his anger cloud his judgement so much. If Tom dislikes the LibDems, by all means he has the right to express that – my point is merely that he does sometimes take it a bit too far.
Of course, I’m not saying that justifies the nasty obsessive comments he gets, but I do think the tone of the blog might contribute towards the tone of his contributors – not much, but maybe a little. I’ve taken the LibDem issue – it’s the one that sticks out in my mind the most. I wouldn’t want to rule out what Tom thinks, but sometimes his expression, in my humble opinion, seems a little crass.
That said, for the most part I haven’t got a problem with you, Mr. Harris. You’re a clever, witty man, and though I, like other contributors, may disagree with your political views, I think the blogosphere would be a much less entertaining place without you. So God bless you, Tom Harris, and have a Merry Christmas.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 12:51 pm
An insightful post but I feel that much of it is your own fault. You’re a politician and you post on political subjects.
As the party in power the simple fact in a lot of people’s minds is that “it” (whatever “it” is that annoys them) is your fault.
However I believe that the vast majority of people in the UK don’t care about politics or politicians until something happens that affects them in a very direct way or an election is about to happen. (1)
So, the economy goes down the pan and they lose their job – it’s your fault.
They can’t go down to the local and have a smoke and a beer any more – It’s your fault.
To the majority of people it doesn’t matter a damn if the government of the moment actually has a choice or not, it’s still your fault.
Inevitably the longer you are in power for the more you annoy people.
Despite what the evangelists may say no government in history has ever lost power because they made everybody happy all the time, you lose power because you eventually annoy the majority of voters too much.
With this being a mostly political blog it will mean that the majority of your readers and the vast majority of your commentators are actively interested in politics and very probably have entrenched views , hence they will have strong comments they wish to post. The longer your party is in power the more strident and probably irrational these comments will become.
The only way I can see this not being the case is if the party system is abandoned which realistically is never going to happen. Having said that many of the comments will still be the same but targeted at individuals rather than the government.
Personally, and I believe this to be true of most non overtly political people, my political beliefs are far too complex for a single party to cater for. For example I could think that Labour has the best ideas on the NHS and social care, the Tories the best ideas on foreign policy, trust the Lib Dems with the economy, think UKIP has the right idea with Europe and even think the BNP is right on immigration. (I don’t think any of the above, it’s just an example before I get slated) So whoever is in power is going to be doing things I don’t want or like. All I can do is vote for the candidate who I believe will do best for my local area and accept they will kowtow to the whip.
The whole system has an inbuilt self destruct for the government, it’s just a matter of time. As time goes on the comments will get worse and more strident.
(1) Next time your on the doorstep ask Joe Public to name 5 members of the cabinet, 3 members of the shadow cabinet and 2 Lib Dems. Not a big ask but I will bet not many ordinary members of the public can do it.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 1:04 pm
Tom,
There are times when it worthwhile being angry or annoyed, and even saying so in unparliamentary language on someone else’s blog.
That thread was not one of them.
Folk who are that callous destroy their own credibility, not yours.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 2:21 pm
Tom,
I am one of the ’stalkers’ of your blog, this being my first comment. I read your blog largely because I don’t agree with your opinions. It’s educational for me to read about your thoughts on topics, and these work to develop my own opinions. I’m making this comment to encourage you that there are people out there who just enjoy reading your blogs but don’t make themselves known. As it happens, I rarely comment on any of the many blogs I read each day, I’ve never found them particularly enlightening!
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 2:36 pm
Well said, Tom. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, and with the more supportive commenters (particularly Rapunzel). Unfortunately it seems that the angry brigade are the ones with too much time on their hands, and therefore seem to be always there for round-the-clock whinging and snideness. As you say, it’s often the total irrelevance to the original post that’s one of the most annoying aspects. And the eschewing of any kind of generous and positive comment (as in the case of the Normandy veterans post) in favour of the usual bile.
Some of us really appreciate your sharing your thoughts, insights and humour with us. But I have often wondered how on earth you put up with some of the c**p you get in return.
Anyway, please don’t let the ******s grind you down, keep up the good work, and a very merry Christmas to you and yours.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 3:18 pm
Interesting post on how politicians turned blogger manipulate data.
http://tinyurl.com/yhsstnc
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 3:42 pm
Land OF Angry
Great title for a new Doctor Who episode.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 4:19 pm
Don’t take it so personally Tom
I hate EVERYONE
(Put me down as the dangerous & scary one)
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 4:21 pm
Bridie, I take your point that people might see ‘inappropriate’ as too subjective a criterion for judging blog comments, but by inappropriate I mean things like making personal or abusive remarks about other commentors (or me, for that matter), calling for violence against someone, that sort of stuff. That aside, I publish everything.
For example, my recent post on gay rights provoked a huge range of responses, yet the only comment I removed was when someone wrote something to the effect of ‘Uganda has the right idea’, which is clearly promoting violence so it got deleted.
Honestly, it’s not that hard to make basic judgement calls while still encouraging debate.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 4:27 pm
Tom,
I read your blog every day to get a view of your thoughts, but don’t usually read the comments and I’ve never before left any of my own.
I agree with some of what you write, and disagree with other parts, but I regularly come back because you make me think about what I believe and why I believe it, as well as making me feel happy inside that it’s OK to like both political debate and the Xfactor
I know that it would be easy for politician to live in a Westminster bubble, but I admire you for for taking the time to engage with the wider world, especially as sometimes you have to wade through the bizarre and downright wrong to get to the real debate.
I wish you and your family a very merry Christmas, and and happy New Year!
John
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 4:53 pm
I’m sorry I missed posting about the Normandy Veterans – ran out of time. As a CofE vicar I am often involved in funerals of those who served in the 2nd War or who had fathers who were in the Great War. They spoke very little about their experiences even to close family, and who can blame them; they just wanted to draw a veil over it and get back on with their lives. And they did. They may have done extraordinary things in wartime but they were also the people who by doing ordinary things in difficult times helped the country to recover and laid the foundation of the society that we benefit from today (no snide remarks about Unions, please). And the sacrifice that many made of their lives is brought home every year when we read the list of all the local young men who went off to war in 1914-18 and didn’t return, in some cases two or three in the same family. It is always very sobering, and we do right to honour all those who served their country in this way, whatever we may think of the politics or the government.
And Tom, I may not agree with all your politics or views but I appreciate reading your blog – you make it personal. Thank you.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 4:54 pm
Hi Tom,
May I take this opportunity to wish you and your family a Happy Christmas and New Year.
On the Normandy Veterans piece, I can fully understand your frustration. As one of your resident smoking ban nutters, so to speak, I think I have toned that down a bit and try and approach your blog in the right spirit.
I would of written about my grandfather who was a navigator and flight engineer on Maryland bombers and Mosquitos, whose chances of survival were 50% or less. WW2 is the finest example of the British people of all political hues at their best. He never mentioned the war either.
To be honest I saw political blogs, especially Labour ones, as a medium to vent my spleen. However with people like yourself and Kerry McCarthy I have been won over with your keen sense of decency and conversation. What I have learnt that I certainly as a Tory do not hold a monopoly on the truth and virtue.
I think one of the frustrations that many commentators here have is that you will of been in power for 13 years and 3 elections. To us that don’t like it, tough, that’s democracy.
As someone involved as a lobbiest on the smoking ban can I ask for restraint from the smokers, also no doubt some non smokers and only mention it if it is entirely relevant to the story. Tom voted against the ban and supports an amendment, we can’t ask for more.
Peace and prosperity to you all.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 5:36 pm
I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the second world war was not worth fighting.
Disgust at the transmutation of the ECSC into a political union without our consent, could never be so fundamental or idiotic as to invalidate the millions of deaths and all the suffering.
This is not the greatest government we’ve ever had. Not even the best Labour government we’ve ever had.
But nobody in it wants anything other than the best for our people. To ascribe to them the Stalinist misanthropy that many do, is to ruin the case against them.
Just as the depiction of the Conservative party as entirely lacking in human decency and interested solely in the ultra rich
destroys the case against them.
Happy Christmas, Tom.
Happy Christmas all.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 7:01 pm
“David Cairns, with a mixture of amusement and resignation, regularly asks me for the latest example of the entirely inappropriate and humourless comment in response to an entirely non-political item I’ve posted. And there are *always plenty*…Now, it’s dangerous to analyse an individual from his comments on a blog. But since it’s all I’ve got to go on, I can’t help drawing my own conclusions.” -Tom Harris
[emphasis mine]
Unless you were, understandably, censoring more strictly that week the recent post “On Dad duty” attracted an overwhelming number of well intentioned comments even from people who are strongly critical of Labour policies.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 7:31 pm
I also read your blog every day Tom
Out of morbid curiousity
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 7:50 pm
Ryan, you have hit it.
James, I think you mean ‘lurker’.
And Letters From A Tory, I take your point, too. I would just say ‘abusive’ and ‘provocative’, instead of ‘inappropriate’. But I will check out you blog when I have more time (reading blogs really cuts into the prezzie wrapping if you aren’t strict).
Rapunzel and Nicky, every time I read your posts, a colour and a facial feature spring to mind. And it’s not blue eyes or red cheeks. Try life without the blinkers.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 8:34 pm
Tom – enjoyable post… You could take after Dr Who and perhaps have a Dalek icon system for comments?
1 Dalek = Vaguely Sane
5 Daleks – Off the planet.
Anyway – I am sure you will ‘regenerate’ over Christmas… or should that be ‘rejuvenate’
Happy Christmas to all
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:34 pm
And then there are the others who, I have no doubt, speak in their private lives in exactly the same way that they write on blogs. They’re the scary ones. They’re the ones who genuinely believe everyone around them is as utterly obsessed with the EU, the smoking ban, and the imminence of Labour’s police state as they themselves are.
That’s me! Except I don’t believe that anyone else is as obsessed as I am about one of those.
But each of those topics shares one thing in common: they never receive any serious media attention. The EU used to be discussed endlessly and publicly, but now it’s hardly discussed at all. The other two topics (and plenty more) are never discussed. All us ‘obsessives’ are doing is to keep on raising the matters – because nobody else will. If they got the attention they deserved, they wouldn’t bother to add their ha’pennyworth.
But I will cling to my belief that the people who read this blog and who choose not to leave comments are just like the general populace: normal, moderate, sensible, decent, and holding political views which may or may not be vindicated at the next election,
You may well be right. But effectively you’re saying that there is a set of ‘normal’ political opinions – e.g. about, say, taxation, education, and healthcare – and anything else is ‘abnormal’. Particularly any single issue.
But surely all political issues start out when something affects someone, usually adversely? It might be the closure of a steel mill in one town in Britain. It might be persecution of a minority like blacks or gays. People get angry about it and they make a fuss. At the outset, they’re seen as ‘abnormal’, because most ‘normal’ people aren’t interested in those things. But they keep on making a fuss anyway, and after a while they become part of the landscape, and in so doing they gradually become ‘normal’.
A great deal of ‘normal’ politics these days is of this sort. Gay rights? Unheard of 50 years ago. Feminism? Off the map. Environmentalism? Non-existent. Anyone who campaigned for them was a nutter, and ‘abnormal’. Now they’re all mainstream issues that every political party has signed up to.
But that doesn’t mean that there are no new issues. I’m not particularly obsessed with the EU, but I can well see why some people are, and can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be. Same with Labour’s police state.
In fact, if people are exercised by anything at all, be it their local football stadium or the price of butter, that is what matters to them, and they shouldn’t be labelled as ‘abnormal’ or ‘obsessive’ just because they’re almost entirely alone.
Mary Whitehouse used to be ‘obsessed’ with media pornography. It wasn’t an obsession I shared. But if that was what mattered to her, then good for her that she spoke up about it and made a nuisance of herself. Same for Peter Tatchell about gays. Same for lots of other people about lots of other issues.
So I don’t think there’s anything abnormal about people going on about the EU, or the smoking ban, or Labour’s police state. Those just happen to be the things that are eating a few people these days. Tomorrow it’ll be something different, just like it was yesterday.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 10:52 pm
You’re right, Frank – there’s nothing abnormal about people going on about the EU. There is, however, something very wrong with people who are unable to talk or write about anything other than their own pet obsessions, regardless of the topic of the post on which they are commenting.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 11:01 pm
Merry Christmas Tom.
I am a Labour supporter and railwayman. i know just what you mean about some of the commenters. It’s worse still at the Guardian – and I suspect the torrent of abuse Polly Toynbee, for example, gets when she files is affecting what she says, to some extent.
I have to say that if the blogosphere had existed fifteen years ago, I may have been a bit intemperate re John Major and co.
The Tories are riding high in the polls but are also in a very dangerous position.
I don’t get the sense that people want the Government to do less. A core of senior Tories believe the state is too large and will use the recession to wield the axe.
Some of the Tories’ current supporters will then jump ship. Coupled with Labour supporters who already have a pretty good idea what a Cameron led Government would mean, it’s quite possible that the blogosphere will become more poisonous still. Some of the current Tory bloggers may suddenly find themselves under attack.
I started reading this blog when you were Railways Minister and have carried on because you always have something interesting to say and your view of Labour politics is similar to mine.
Keep up the good work and don’t let the so-and-sos grind you down.
Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 11:22 pm
Well, speaking as one of the nutters, we’re a bit like people who’ve had their foot run over by a car: they’re hopping around on the other foot, and that’s the only thing that matters to them. And how could it be otherwise? Sometimes that’s just how life is.
And it’s all the more intense the more nobody else pays any attention to them. The simple solution to the issues of the EU, the smoking ban, and Labour’s police state is to seriously address the issues, even if you don’t think they’re in the least bit serious. Half the head of steam about these things would vanish if people felt they weren’t being entirely ignored, and were at last getting a hearing. It’s the deafening silence that makes people shout louder and louder. It’s the untreated wound that festers.
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 12:10 am
Och Tom, don’t take it too seriously. You’re a good bloke, but your party is terribly unpopular right now, and probably for the next ten years or so…
I think you have to live with it. When you write a blog like this, you are opening up to everyone, including people who can’t see past the fact that you are Labour, and Labour has made their lives rotton.
Of course, as you say, there are an awful lot of sad and angry people in this country (and as Hadleigh says) everywhere else.
That, I think, is the greatest pity. A country full of angry sad people who just want to have a moan, a rant, a cry.
Have a great Chrtistmas and I wish you a fantastic 2010, full of happiness and health.
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 12:18 am
A labour party official has never knocked on my door in my entire life – I am now 42.
You may not have heard about the smoking ban issue on the doorsteps that you knock on, but I’m sure that is why I’m being avoided by the labour officials in my constituency.
I was a happy-go lucky, professional and successful family woman before this onslaught, that was way over the top, when perfectly acceptable solutions existed to cater for everyone.
I had never experienced hate before 1/7/07, but I am now geting used to it due to the legislation and propaganda that is pushed by your party and those who influence it.
It’s not surprising that I have changed as a result. I feel the hate that your government has funded against me running through my veins. It’s a change that I do not like and am in control of; I pity those with little self-esteem though who have been inflicted with the same and trust that they are able to remain strong; I pity the labour party for adopting draconian legislation (worse than anti-smoking Canada) rather than adopting their promoted E&D approach of catering for all legal citizens.
I, like many who go unknocked at, wonder why your party cannot understand why people are so angry.
I’d love a knock from a labour official. Perhaps I could even knock some sense into them.
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 1:31 am
Not that I expect you to read it, Tom, but I’ve used your post and our exchange as a subject for my own blog about Land of Anger. I think there are some very serious issues in there, which aren’t being addressed.
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 2:23 am
“And it seems that these very, very angry people will always be angry at something, and probably always have been angry. And unhappy”
Hit the nail on the head there Tom.Like it or not you are a ‘public’ figure and are therefore little more than a virtual punching bag. My partner was elected a Councillor in the mid-nineties and after four years of working until 10pm each week night, attending every community, school and police meeting, being on call to visit any constituent, she couldn’t wait to step down. Don’t get me wrong, she is still involved in community groups and is a school governor, what has changed is the sheer level of abuse she took for merely being ‘a politician’.The local crackpots,stalkers,angry mob simply moved onto the next target.Think of the public service you are performing though, if it wasn’t you it would be someone else
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 7:11 am
I’m an occasional reader, and I’ve commented here once before. I’d say the comments I’ve seen on this blog are pretty representative of what people are saying to me in day to day conversation.
…you are a very public face of a government that’s on Santa’s naughty list. In fact, you a public face of a three party political system that’s become deeply discredited. Nearly everyone I’ve talked face to face about this in the last few months believes that the government will change next year. None of them think it will help very much.
Under the circumstances, it’s not surprising that people are letting off steam.
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 9:07 am
Tom – I have not read your blog before – despite the plaudits that it receives. I will now be visiting regularly.
The whole business of ‘flaming’ on the web is something I have observed for many years now. I think much of it is a product of the medium – people can hide behind the anonymity that the internet offers. As a consequence I think some people let rip with their bile in a way that they never would in company. And what intrigues me about the posts above is that although clearly many of them come from your ‘usual suspects’ the comments are framed constructively and even wish you a Merry Christmas despite chasmic (?) differences in political opinions.
I guess this gets me wondering about anger. Perhaps like you, it puzzles me as to what it’s function is. I know when I get angry I get incoherent and I am sure it is no good for my blood pressure. I wonder if more could be achieved if we had more constructive debates – in search of the real differences and overlaps of our views, opinions, beliefs etc.
There again – perhaps I am incoherent even when I am not angry…
Perhaps people express anger when they feel they are not being heard. We need to make sure that politics remains (??) and becomes more of a process where everyone can be heard, and their opinions count. (I will hold back from going on about the dire ‘First Past The Post election’ system at this point… another time maybe). In that respect, your blog offers a hugely important outlet for people to express their views. Perhaps people need your blog to reduce their blood pressure… perhaps you could get Richard Wiseman to conduct a joint psychological / physiological experiment?
And I kind of hope that you do not censor what people write – let it all rip – after all the people who post with courtesy, humour and honesty will shine out.
May I wish you all good cheer of the season – and I trust you will carry on blogging into the next decade of century.
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 12:23 pm
Tom, I was one of those who posted yesterday and I intended to be sympathetic to what you wrote. If it didn’t come out that way then I most sincerely apologise. I especially honour those Scottish Normandy veterans who, as part of the 15th(Scottish) Infantry Division took part in Operation Epsom in June 1944. There is a famous photograph of soldiers of the 7th Seaforth Highlanders being led into battle by a piper. This would cease within a few weeks: too many pipers had been killed or injured. All the Scottish units involved suffered terrible casualties during the days (26-30th June) of the battle.
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 4:45 pm
If one operates a political based blog then one can expect politically based questions, comments, comparatives and discusion pieces to develop on it, including on light-hearted topics of interest since the point of going to the blog in the first place is basically, political. I don’t quite see where that’s such a raging problem, especially when there are people whose voices are never being heard or acknowledged by any of the major parties in power. I would think it is to be expected. Merry Christmas too, I’m not complaining, I’m just saying it doesn’t seem such a horrible tremendous problem.
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 4:59 pm
One sometimes wonders at people’s anger. For example, what is it about a football match that rouses people so? Why do football managers become apoplectic with rage about a referee’s decision?
Such things rarely rouse me. What rouses me to anger is, for example, when the political party that I voted for all my life breaks its manifesto pledge and renders my simple but pleasant social life almost intolerable.
I become angry when the Secretary of State for Health makes fatuous claims that ending smoking in pubs and clubs will save 3000 lives a year.
I become angry when I read that so-called eminent scientists are twisting the facts (viz, Climategate).
What makes me angry is lies and deceit and I think my anger is justified in those circumstances.
Happy Winter Holiday to one and all.
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 5:05 pm
What you said makes a lot of sense, Frank. Of course, Tom’s right too, to say that not every entry should be used to grind an axe. One possible solution, for people who tend to focus on a single issue, is to create a user name that reflects that issue, and link it to a blog which does the same. Then they can post on the subject at hand, and anyone interested in the cause they espouse will know where to click. To quote an ever more annoying cliche, simples.
Thursday 24 December 2009 at 6:27 pm
I have just googled myself on this blog and have determined, that if you exclude the expenses themed comment that you didn’t publish, I score only 12-15% on the angry rant-o-meter (Its difficult to be exact, as I cant understand one of my posts, but it didn’t sound particularily angry).
That leaves me 85-88% rational, and thus I feel able to speak without shame.
You run a blog Tom, quite a funny blog at that, you are infact the only left of centre blog that I have come across with a sense of humour. Well Done.
You also let stuff though on your comments that most lefty blogs wouldn’t, again well done.
The reason why people, including me are soooo mad is that our views dont get heard in the MSM, not a dicky bird. Never.. Ever.. No way.. No Sir.. Other people have said such on this thread and they are right.
However quite possibly the most rant-inducing c**kwaffle on the subject of the smoking ban however is the insistance by ASH, Sir Micheal White and government ministers that really I’m delighted with the ban, and secretly I wanted it all along.
This isn’t what I think at all, but whenever this subject comes up in the media, that is how my views are represented.
So I am sorry If sometimes we come over as all Saturday night and 8 Stellas, but this is the only outlet most of us have.
Have a good Winterval.
Friday 25 December 2009 at 10:54 am
I was made rather angry yesterday by two teenagers who lit up in the shelter at a railway station. I gave up smoking years back, but the addiction merely abates, it is unpleasant to inhale nicotine.
I objected and moved down the platform.
When the train arrived I was able to refer them to the Guard, who effectively humiliated them by sending them to apologise. They didn’t and I didn’t require it, but when they got off at the same stop one of them said “Orlright?” which was meant to be conciliatory.
I find the proseletysing of tobacco use objectionable, in all its forms. Society is rejecting a cancer, and counter propaganda is pernicious. There is a strong case for making its possession illegal in my view, but I don’t push that.
In a like manner Prof Nutt may or may not be right re which category of illegal drugs Marijuana should be in according to current evidence. The way he went about his propaganda was inflammatory and likely to encourage more kids to smoke the euphemistically named “Dope.”
It was not even true in a literal sense that marijuana is less “dangerous” than “tobacco.” Leaving aside the kinds o the two in question, the real question is “Dangerous to whom? and in what situation?”
Drug users – such as car drivers – do not always behave as they are required to in laboratory conditions. Nor are drug tests given to all those who suffer at the hands of others, nor to those who might be held responsible.
Friday 25 December 2009 at 12:00 pm
Nulabour have turned our wonderful country into something resembling an east european dictatorship. You seem to think you can control every aspect of each of our lives.
It will be so refreshing when the day comes that we have a government that is honest, doesn’t spin everything, gives us back our liberty and takes out of this wretched EU amonst other things. You should remember whose money you are wasting the poor taxpayers.
And you are surprised at our anger!!!!!! I think the word anger is an understatement.
Tom and the rest of you Nulabour people please will you wake up and listen.
Friday 25 December 2009 at 12:37 pm
And we are also angry about the Iraq war, the Dr. David Kelly, the war in Afghanistan, the Police State now exisiting in the UK, DNA profiling, the mess that the NHS is in and the falling educational standards. In addition is the dishonesty of so many MP’s over their expenses and the creation of the “ruling elite” who seem to be immune from prosecution unlike is proles.
You may well be a good guy Tom but I really do dislike a lot of the company you keep.
I think the above is more than enough to be angry about.
Thats by no means all but very good reasons to be angry.
Friday 25 December 2009 at 5:56 pm
Most of those nutters as you call them will be voting in a few months time.
Most of the new labour rabble have been chasing voters, so I suspect labour will offer an MP’s job to a few nutters soon, just in case they are a minority
Saturday 26 December 2009 at 12:02 am
“Most of those nutters as you call them…”
Help me out here, Robert – where in the post did I call you/them nutters?
Saturday 26 December 2009 at 12:15 am
Robert: to be fair to Tom, he didn’t call people like myself nutters. He said we are “obsessives and cranks!”
He’s correct in my case. I’m obsessed with living in a country free from foreign interference and it makes me cranky that we increasingly aren’t.
Saturday 26 December 2009 at 12:02 pm
An earlier exaggeration about eastern Europe amused rather than angered me.
A friend there whom I used to work with over the net wondered why some of the messages I sent putting phone conversations into good English were not arriving.
They were being intercepted by one of her work “colleagues” who had been a secret policeman in the communist days.
It seems to me that those who have been profiting from such interceptions, such as The Daily Telegraph (props Barclay bros in tax exile Jersey), The Tory Front Bench, Guido Fawkes (who was happy to boast of assisting Nadine Dorries in connection with the intercepted Macbride emails) fall into the same category -those who seek to dictate to the rest of us and get away with it.
I hope HM Labour Government will modify the laws on data theft.
Saturday 26 December 2009 at 12:49 pm
Tom
I see people respondint to my comment but not my actual comment itself.
Can I ask why?
Douglas McLellan
Saturday 26 December 2009 at 3:55 pm
Tom,
I’m one of the obsessives and cranks. I’m highly educated, with an interesting and well-paid job and have never been in trouble with the law; but I’m obsessed with the smoking ban: protesting it, flouting it and getting it overturned. I don’t get angry about much else. The only other things I get angry about are ipods disturbing my train journey and pavement cyclists. I don’t care about the environment, Iraq, the NHS or all the usual stuff. Put yourself in the shoes of a smoker. The Labour manifesto excluded private clubs and non-food pubs from its proposed ban. Nobody who has studied the issue believes passive smoking to pose a serious health risk, particularly to those who don’t visit smoking premises. Not the H of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, Professor Sir Richard Peto, Professor Sir Richard Doll, Professor Julian LeGrand. The politicians involved in obtaining the ban now all admit that its purpose was to cut smoking prevalence, which it has failed to do. Smokers are angry because their social lives are ruined. No drinks after work with a relaxing smoke. No thinking time with a coffee and a cigarette in Caffe Nero. In fact, no smoking in any non-residential building in England. Although the ban is there to protect workers, it includes volunteers, so no informal smoking clubs. If you think this will force us into giving up, you are wrong. We have just become angry. I’ve ripped up the donor card I carried for thirty years. I won’t consider giving blood. I’ll never again vote for any of the mainstream parties. If I’ve had a good day at work it will be UKIP; otherwise the BNP. I don’t agree with their views, but I don’t feel part of this society – anything to cause trouble. I despise your giving hundreds of thousands of tax payers money each year to ASH UK, the fake “consultations” you engage in each time you want another ban, your lies, which you don’t even bother to excuse. You politicians now have a big problem. You are despised by a big proportion of the electorate. Voter turnout is through the floor. The internet means that groups of cranks get encouragement from knowing there are other cranks out there: some, such as Frank Davis, with the talent to articulate our feelings. I recommend you take a look at his blog each day. Put yourself in the mind of a smoker: not one of the, according to ASH uk, millions who are going to give up by chewing gum, but one of the angry ones, who now hate and despise politics and politicians.
Saturday 26 December 2009 at 4:28 pm
@Douglas McLellan
“Tom
I see people respondint to my comment but not my actual comment itself.
Can I ask why?
Douglas McLellan”
Firstly Douglas, if you have commented on this thread it doesn’t appear to have been in this name.
Secondly, if you Had made a comment AND a point in it was as compelling as you evidently think it would have been it just might be that those who read it didn’t agree, and, of course, most people who do comment do not read every word of every post. This is a voluntary forum.
Thirdly, we all make mistakes. Quietzapple’s nth Law of Commenting is that whomsoever points out such a mistake in one of his/her fellows’ efforts either has just made the same error, or will shortly thereafter.
Saturday 26 December 2009 at 8:09 pm
@Jon; “Nobody who has studied the issue believes passive smoking to pose a serious health risk, ”
Oh yes it does.
Quite apart from the risk any carcinogens pose to those who inhale them addicts who have managed to give up are at risk of resuming the habit whenever we inhale or otherwise ingest nicotine.
Please desist.
Sunday 27 December 2009 at 1:32 am
Great post Tom
Ignore the obsessive’s and the ranters – as you point out they are a tiny, tiny minority of inadequates (you know who I mean).
Most decent ordinary folk get it.
Sunday 27 December 2009 at 2:15 pm
jon
Nobody who has studied the issue believes passive smoking to pose a serious health risk,* particularly to those who don’t visit smoking premises *.
********************************************
Just so I’ve got you right; if smoking is allowed in a pub and I don’t go to that pub, then my health is not at risk.
Wow, you’ve put some serious research into this topic.
Make that man, Chief Medical Officer.
Sunday 27 December 2009 at 3:49 pm
“Quite apart from the risk any carcinogens pose to those who inhale them addicts who have managed to give up are at risk of resuming the habit whenever we inhale or otherwise ingest nicotine.”
Quietzapple, you may be wrestling with your inner demons.
I came to an accomodation with mine.. Try it, it’ll may stop you ratting out kids on railway platforms.
Sunday 27 December 2009 at 6:00 pm
Tom – It’s really quite simple. People are angry because our MPs no longer represent our views, consider our views or balance the views of the people whom they represent. But then as 80% of our laws come from the EU, perhaps there is nothing you can do – except give us a referendum on whether we stay in or leave.
Sunday 27 December 2009 at 6:50 pm
@J Campbell: I have worked on a ward where people were dying of lung cancer and will adopt a stronger line on smoking in the new year than heretofore, especially with kids most likely too young to buy tobacco.
My guess, based on Lots of experience, is that baseless accusations come from those who fear their own natures, but then perhaps you knew that.
So I suggest you examine whatever demons you suspect you have. NHS Direct may assist.
Sunday 27 December 2009 at 10:42 pm
“My guess, based on Lots of experience, is that baseless accusations come from those who fear their own natures, but then perhaps you knew that.”
Jesus, QZ it was only a joke.
As for cancer, lung cancer specifically, my mum died of it, as did my uncle, I know it’s not pretty. Still I make my own bed, and you can make yours.
I am not going to spend my whole life trying to avoid a death that I know is going to find me regardless.
You seem to expect others to spend their lives miserable and angry so that they can dribble into their soup for an extra five years at the end of their lives.
There can be an accomodation, and I really hope it is found.
As for NHS direct I have neither need nor desire for their services.
Monday 28 December 2009 at 12:25 am
@jonathan campbell 10.42pm – “As for NHS direct I have neither need nor desire for their services.”
Can’t blame you when its quit ’success’ rate is around 4% (although God knows how the rate is measured at all, given that there seem to be no controls). Why, anyway, is the NHS peddling an addictive substance – nicotine – from which the pharmaceutical companies make millions? And why is it that the pharma industry funded ASH endorse NRT yet refused to even consider Allen Carr’s method (claimed success rate of over 50%) and are trying to ban e-cigarettes in the USA?
These are the people who brought you smoke as the invisible killer – can’t believe that anyone with two brain cells believes it.
Monday 28 December 2009 at 2:11 pm
Had I not managed with the aid of nicotine chewing gum to give up smoking @ 53 or so I would have popped my clogs in some pain by now.
a 4% success rate is presumably per 100 attempts. It is clear from what I have read and experienced that failures to give up are fine, so long as people continue to try until they give up, permanently.
Perseverance and will are the keys to success!
As my expectations and recommendations are de rigeur in right wing trolling circles – no doubt looking for a Guru for The Teens – I recommend:
Lots of Great Music!
A lovely Woman!
Superb Food and Drink!
Good companionship!
Freedom & Love for the Common Good!
For drug addicts too:
Happy New Year!
Monday 28 December 2009 at 6:21 pm
@Quietzapple
1. I had commented and it was under the Douglas McLellan name. I had seen it. Others such as Liberanos at 11.45am (23/12) at seen it and commented. As had Ryan 12.48pm (23/12).
2. I really dont get your second point. I had no quibble about the responses. Just the fact that the comments section now had people commenting on something that was no longer there. I thought the standard process was that if a comment was deleted, then comments in response were also deleted.
3. You are indeed in error. About many many things, in this blog and many others.
Douglas McLellan
Monday 28 December 2009 at 7:01 pm
Quietzapple – Well done for being one of the minority who successfully quit using NRT but might I venture that you quit despite rather than because of it? How on earth can a product that re-inforces the addiction (and adiction is the term used by ASH, NHS et al) free you from it? Has anyone come off their final patch and, still wanting nicotine, thought that they’d kill for a piece of NRT gum? What’s likely to happen is that they continue to veer between nicotine delivery by cigarette and delivery by NRT – Big Tobacco just has to share its profits with Big Pharma!
Don’t you find it just a tad suspicious that the more that smokers are demonised and bullied into quitting, the more that the pharmaceutical industry makes (and it’s a huge market) because the Government peddles only pharma produced aids and also suspicious that pharma companies are so involved at every level of tobacco control?
Monday 28 December 2009 at 7:27 pm
@Douglas
On the contrary your post still extant to which I addressed myself doesn’t make clear that your previous post had been deleted, and I certainly hadn’t read it.
It looked like you were deluded to me.
Next time perhaps you might simply write:
“Tom, please remove the responses to my now deleted post.”
Monday 28 December 2009 at 11:44 pm
@Jay
I am not happy about the Pharmaceutical industry piling up profits from nicotine.
I was addicted to the nicotine gum for years, and initially used gum and cigarettes for several months.
I had tried patches, nasal spray, acupuncture, just trying, a cigarette shaped inhaler without success.
Nicotine replacement works for lots of people, and it remains true above all else, that if you keep trying you have good chances of quitting.
The biggest faults lie with the companied like Philip Morris who KNERW what they were doing when they lured billions of us to start smoking, not HMg for attempting to persuade us to stop.
IF I still smoked I would manage to stay within the law, and, if I wasn’t falling prey to the feelings of sickness I suppressed while I Did smoke, would enjoy it.
Old Holborn (the tobacco, not the dubious right wing blogger) and liquorice papers!
Tuesday 29 December 2009 at 12:55 am
Tom
Firstly I would like to say what a great blog.I don’t read it regularly but it appears objective,honest and open.The best MP’s blog that I have come across.
I’m sorry but I am also one of those freaks obsessed with the smoking ban.
You see, one third of smokers have stopped using pubs entirely since the bans introduction according to a report from The NHS Information Centre,it must be about four million people. A minority which Labour does not appear to care about.
I am one of those people and since I live alone, the ban has ruined my social life entirely.I’m now considering moving abroad.I’ve written to Kerry McCarthy several times,she is my MP but she shows very little understanding. I did vote Labour once, but I never will again.
I’m sorry to put this message to you so bluntly.Merry christmas to you.
Tuesday 29 December 2009 at 2:11 am
@quietzapple
I don’t want to clog up Tom’s thread with a debate on passive smoking but you are quite wrong that it is harmful. The URL is a debate in the British Medical Journal that has gone on for 6 years after the Enstrom/Kabat used the plain English phrase “not causal.”
You are welcome to email me on dave.atherton@freedom2choose.info for a private debate.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#228297
Tuesday 29 December 2009 at 8:56 am
QZ,
There you go, I thought we could find common ground somewhere, our preference in tobacco (at least when you smoked).
Mind you I havn’t seen Old Holborn for a few year, Drum is the closest I found to it.
And there is definatly a trick to liquorice papers, one that I never mastered, they alway seem to desintegrate with me. I’m a strickley Red Riz Guy.
Have a happy, nicotine free new year (I never thought I would say that).
Tuesday 29 December 2009 at 10:47 am
Thanks Jonathan.
You need to be accurate licking the adhesive edge with liq papers, I think that is all there is to it and I was a fairly damp smoker.
Hope you find a healthier alternative, but in the meantime enjoy the weed.
I can think of a New Year’s Resolution . . .
Tuesday 29 December 2009 at 10:49 am
@Dave Atherton
Promise to read some at least of your linked material, you may have noticed I am not into debate.
Tuesday 29 December 2009 at 12:55 pm
Some further thoughts, Tom, on obsessives and cranks and your inability to find any of us on the streets of Glasgow.
Tuesday 29 December 2009 at 2:22 pm
[...] general run of things you’re more likely to find yourself confronting a loon with a hatchet. Tom Harris ponders a phenomenon that we’ve all experienced from time to time: If I write about Doctor Who, or [...]
Tuesday 29 December 2009 at 7:38 pm
Smoking rollups with liquorice papers has a very minor advantage that, when giving up smoking the liquorice papers (mostly if not all sugar), and some of the oral gratification, these can be obtained with the aid of liquorice root.
The nicotine must either be abandoned or some other substitute found.
Step one perhaps for some poor addict looking to make it slightly easier to give up.
Tuesday 29 December 2009 at 9:21 pm
@QZ7.38 – apparently anti-depressant prescriptions are at an all-time high. Perhaps addiction to prescription drugs is more acceptable and, kerching, there goes the Pharma till again.
Tuesday 29 December 2009 at 10:42 pm
@Jay:
Anti-depressant prescriptions would tend to increase as there are increasingly varied and effective drugs available to treat depression.
Wether there are other factors is not so obvious.
Wednesday 30 December 2009 at 1:11 am
@ QZ
I enjoy reading your comments about the evils of tobacco. They are quite logical and could, possibly, be true. But do you not think that one’s freedom to indulge oneself, regardless of whether or not what you do is potentially harmful to you, is pretty important? I really do not see how a person as intelligent as yourself can disagree with that. If you do not,then the playing of the game of rugby really must be banned because people who play that game ought not to be allowed to risk breaking their necks.
I am sure that you do agree, don’t you?
By extension, it ought not to be unreasonable for a person to have the freedom to invite others to join him in his ‘indulgence’. Specifically, I am talking about the owner of a PRIVATELY owned pub ‘inviting’ people to enjoy the facilities of his pub, which include the ability to enjoy tobacco. Persons who do not wish to accept his invitation are perfectly at liberty to refuse his hospitality.
Do you not think that that is a perfectly reasonable scenario?
If you do not, then you must also insist that no person should be allowed (penalty: £5000) to form a rugby team on the grounds that, in so doing, they are perpetuating the danger that a player might break his neck.
You see, QZ, it is about FREEDOM. The freedom to assemble. Our freedom of assembly is being gradually eroded.
Leave a comment