Leaderboard

The trouble is there's no debate because when you put the Daily Mail clipping to Peckris, he pulls out the cliched lazy get-out clause so beloved of the Left: "The Daily Mail, you can't believe a word they say etc etc etc!" Which is very convenient, because a person with even less self-awareness than Peckris can see that cancelling the words mother and woman is not a good look. So isn't that lucky he doesn't have to discuss it with you. And the Cabinet Minister and the other MPs who are complaining about it, and who are probably referred to on page 6 - that's all completely made up by the Mail as well? Let's analyse this. If the Mail either made up the story or got it completely wrong, let's consider what would happen? Firstly, they'd get a complaint in writing from one or more of the involved parties and would then have to issue a subsequent apology and retraction at the very least. If this were not enough, or it was not forthcoming, they would then be referred to the press regulator.and perhaps be taken to court. Thus any newspaper is going to have to be pretty sure that what they print about any organisation or powerful people like politicians is based on facts, unless it's obviously opinion. They cannot afford it not to be. So presumably Peckris has examples of hundreds of cases of the Mail being sued for printing false stories about powerful people or organisations? Because they do it all the time, right? No of course he doesn't. There may have been a few over the decades but that's true of every paper. It's his way of avoiding the subject. And Peckris airily assures us that NHS "users" are referred to as "clients". But this story is specifying maternity clinics, not just general "users" of health services, who will usually have non-sexually specific conditions. So he changes the story to fit his narrative. And when was the last time he hung out in a Maternity Ward? And where does this one come from? - "NHS Trusts who (voluntarily) listen to Stonewall or other such organisations wouldn't get very far with their patients" I'm so glad that the first question that Mrs Spriggs and her haemorrhoids will have is to ask the receptionist is how involved that NHS trust is with Stonewall, because if it is, she's going to march out of the door and find another hospital to have her operation (in 6 months time). We can safely say that Peckris talks nothing but complete nonsense.

…or end up with one having to imbibe a draught of hemlock😂

I have always thought the “agree to differ” conclusion to discussion misplaced; and that point of discussion is not necessarily to “change viewpoints”, but perhaps to sharpen one’s own ideas by articulating them and testing them against the quality of feedback. Moreover the back and forth can be entertaining. So while it may not stop people disappearing down woke rabbit holes with bad ideas, open debate may also serve to keep a sizable minority sane.

Yes, very disappointing that he persisted with the stories after confronted by the BBC. And does make one (well, me) wonder occasionally about pieces that I've been given minimal provenance for and where they might have come from. Last thing I want is the BM telling me they want something I bought, back for their collections!