Posted: Apr 22, 2021 11:53 am
Spearthrower wrote:zerne wrote:I don't see why there should be some standard of debate applied to any member of the public who encounters a paid professional politician out canvassing the area in search of a photo-op. That is for other venues.
I don't believe I'm expecting a 'standard of debate' - I am saying that Humphris is quite possibly a fruitloop with batty ideas that don't really need to be taken seriously, even by a politician who has to worry about his public image.
He does have to worry about it though, as events proved.
Spearthrower wrote:... In fact, I'd rather a politician NOT worry about his public image when confronted with dangerously anti-scientific criticisms. I am not suggesting Starmer was right or wrong, or anything other than that there's little reason I can see to elevate Rod Humphris given what he actually said and what beliefs were motivating him.
Who is elevating him? He was involved and, despite your unkind descriptions, managed to comport himself civilly. Did not swear, spit, or get violent, but made himself heard. Firmly. Starmer conducted himself adequately. But that didn't prevent him from being ejected.
Spearthrower wrote:zerne wrote:In this situation the public is an unknown quantity that you approach at your own peril. The onus is on Starmer to be politic with his engagement. His contribution to this incident was dismissive, abrupt and condescending. Not a good way to deal with someone. But do-able so long as you land the exit.
Quite possibly true, but on the other hand, when a member of the public says something dangerously wrong, I am quite happy to see a politician challenge it. Perhaps he could've done it better - I didn't see the full exchange, just snippets, but it reminds me somewhat of McCain taking the mic off the woman ranting about Obama being a Muslim. Perhaps the biggest criticism is Starmer's management of the encounters, but I am not sure that ability to stylishly fend off fruitloops is really what I would consider to be the most desirable quality in a politician.
I think what is most desireable in a politician, who is full-time, well-paid and experienced is the ability to do their job well.
This is the political equivalent of profesional footaller playing non-league and managing to get themselves a red card in friendly.
Spearthrower wrote:zerne wrote:Instant karma then occurs as the slighted pub landlord then watches Sir diddy as he waltzes into his own building. Handing him an opportunity to oppose the leader of the opposition personally. Which he then did. With a focused passion that sent Kier Starmer packing. Kier then issues a statement saying he profoundly disagrees with the pub landlord. No one cares.
Kier failed to impress. Kier failed to oppose. Failed to organise and, most damningly of all, he failed to get a pint.
Ahh, I see. I have to note then that you have personal antipathy towards Starmer as indicated by calling him names and enjoying the idea of his discomfort which may then be causing you to review this incident in quite a different light. You may well be justified in holding that opinion of him. I don't really hold an opinion of him one way or another, so for me this isn't some huge blow to him or his image. I'm actually glad Starmer challenged (even if not entirely effectively) the guy's anti-covid ranting and apparently, other people have started to make that same criticism too - I've just seen an article that Humphris was on a morning TV show and was called out by a doctor for promoting these bad ideas.
Antipathy? Antipthay! LET ME YOU ABOUT MY AUNTIPATHY!!!
Lovey woman, a saint, kind to cats and dogs,
won't hear a word against her,
she has but one fatal flaw,
in that she sadly fictional.
There is challenging a misinformed voter, and succeeding. Then there is whatever Kier wants to call that debacle.
He's barred.