[Daphne – I disagree. Politicians are nothing without their personal qualities. We are not androids.]

Regarding personal attacks, in logic “ad hominem” arguments are considered invalid. Beyond logic, while freedom of expression is important, I believe it is not an absolute right. I would consider that the following go beyond the limit of legitimate freedom of expression: 1. abusive language as saying a person is mad or ignorant, and 2. the delving into the private life of an individual. We see the latter used quite often in the US political campaigns. Owing to these limits, there are libel laws in many countries to protect the reputation of persons. As has been said in the past “O Liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton nom!”

[Daphne – Tedious David, back again. Ad hominen arguments are not valid in situations which require evidence and the proving of evidence, David. They are perfectly valid as criticism. An example: I don’t trust a man who wears a wig; hence if a party leader wears a wig I am not going to trust him.]

I have to add that it is possible that Brookes was also inspired by Professor Edward Scicluna’s comments that he sides with the underdogs.

I love Private Eye. Whenever I’m in London it’s the first thing I buy to have something to read on the tube or before I go to bed.

And yes, the material on it would be grounds for the death penalty by Maltese standards.

Shall we tell them about Sebastian Horsley?

As for your “piece” about Mintoff, you posted a picture and made up a (spurious) story about what circumstances it might have been taken in, Daily Mail style. It was deliberately offensive, but also crass and artless.

Satirical material like the above is produced within well-defined legal boundaries designed to ensure political freedom of speech while protecting individual rights. What you do is propaganda, harassment and rabble-rousing. Shutting down this blog would not be an affront to freedom and democracy – quite the opposite.

[Daphne – Unbelievable. No, really, incredible. And do you know what’s most shocking about your statement? Not the fact that like your average Laburist you just don’t understand the principles of free expression and are uncomfortable with the concept. The shocking thing is that you fail to realise that the curtailment of the right to freedom of expression, and what followed on from that, including direct attacks on the free press through arson, is one of the worst memories that people my age and older have. So when you talk of closing down blogs, shutting up journalists and the like, you trigger off a Pavlovian response almost as strong as the sight of your emblema tal-partit. You don’t protect the free press by targetting it, my dear. And your understanding of what constitutes satire is extremely weak. I generally find that people who think as you do are humourless – and that is why you think as you do. So a spoof about Grace Borg’s talons becomes a ‘hate comment’ or a ‘personal attack’, while everyone else just cracks up laughing. Your sort would have been a book-burner in another age, or sitting on some Inquisition Tribunal investigating known and notorious witches for magic and spreading false ideas.]

When Margaret Thatcher (“Prime Minister Emeritus Baroness Doctorrrr Thatcher” for the Maltese) had a stroke some seven years back, and ended up with a severe speech impediment, Private Eye published a front cover showing the ailing Thatcher, with an empty speech bubble and the title THATCHER SHOCK.

I still treasure that issue.

Then there was the series of hilarious articles on Princess Diana’s death. Or Princess Margaret’s cremation (“One last smoke. It’s what she would have wanted.”). And this is the royal family we’re talking about.

For those of you who think we’re backwards, but slowly moving towards European standards in satire, think again. A quick look at your typical Maltese 1920s satirical cartoon and its 2012 counterpart will soon convince you otherwise.