In the land of the blogs, the inveterate censor is king of his little demesnes, in his own eyes and those of all who know/suspect no better. It’s been quite a few months since a comment sent to Tom Harris’ blog failed to meet with his approval, and now two have not passed muster in a few hours. The first one, below, was a response to a mawkish tale he blogged yesterday afternoon, late-ish, something in the ‘gee, kinda makes ya think’ ouvre. Not a particular vicious response, but I guess it wasn’t ‘on message’ enough for an entry that is intended to communicate ‘you’re what this war is all about, kid’.

For all those who endlessly chant that Tom is a ‘nice guy’, and ‘too good’ for his party, remember that what you choose to reject says as much about you as what you permit:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Joe K
Wednesday 5 May 2010 at 9:28 pm

Don’t know quite what the message is here, if there is one. Would it have made any difference to the story if she’d said she was voting Tory? Would you have walked away muttering ‘Bigoted woman…’?

People with serious illnesses, and their spouses, can still take an interest in who gets to run the country, so it’s hardly a miracle that she would like to vote if at all possible. At the same time, the right not to take part, as opposed to being too apathetic to, is important as well, and none of this unctuous ‘people died so you could vote’ malarkey. People will vote, or not vote tomorrow, for lots of reasons. Some will be good reasons, and some will be ridiculous. Some people will vote for a person/party and others will vote against (i.e., ‘tactically’) and that will be the ‘mandate’, if you can call it that, of whoever wins.

The second:

No sign of my comment, then. Guess I spoiled the Kodak moment with a bit of common sense. Next time you want to do the Kenny Everett ‘Don’t you love me even more?’ bit, I’ll keep quiet, ‘k?

Advertisements