If Saviour “jaqdbu ugiegh ta’ zaqq” when he mentions Daphne’s name, I’d like to know what he feels when he reads this blog, which I suspect he reads secretly in the toilet anyway, just like Kev.

Saviour said he doesn’t mention Daphne’s name ghax jaqbdu qugieh ta’ zaqq.

Maybe that’s why he is always wiccu maqrus because although he can’t mention Daphne’s name, he can’t get it out of his mind.

Changing one’s opinion is not a problem. It is the natural outcome of being open to new insight and information.

A belief in one’s right to the freedom of expression and a commitment to defend that right is a matter of principle, not opinion. If the ‘belief’ in that right fluctuates according to what is said or, more precisely about whom something is said, it is not principle at all, but merely a tool of convenience.

That was amply illustrated by the ‘golden age’ of labour from which much of the current labour line up derives.

I don’t see it as being crazy – it would be crazy if one changed opinions on really fundamental stuff like, oh let’s say the death penalty. But changing one’s opinions on the parochial fishpond politics that we have here seems a reasonable thing to do.

[Daphne – Not at all. Failure to mention the individual by name is no protection against a law suit if that person is easily identifiable to the man on the Clapham omnibus.]

@P. Shaw
The Times is not controlled by Labour – as yet.

But isn’t your name banned on The Times?

[Daphne – Of course not. Why would it be?]