IntenseDebate - Tom Harris

13 years ago @ Dizzy Thinks - Damn you Tom Harris MP! · 1 reply · +6 points

Guest - beautiful sentiments, by the way. I assume you're getting me mixed up with my blogging colleague, Tom Watson MP - not because you called me a "fat disgusting cunt" which, arguably, might indeed be an accurate description of me, but because you refer to the phone-tapping controversy, on which i have only rarely commented and on which the other Tom has focussed very consistently and effectively.

13 years ago @ And another thing... - Person the barricades! · 0 replies · +3 points

Yes, you're right, dammit! Too many "nots". Fixed now.

13 years ago @ And another thing... - Person the barricades! · 0 replies · +1 points

True, but instead we're not discussing the issue of how HE can be funded - we're discussing whether direct violent action is ever justified. Even in Penny's original article, the issue barely rates a mention, except wrapped up in some over-dramatic non-specific nonsense about stolen dreams or such. That's hardly helpful, is it?

13 years ago @ And another thing... - Person the barricades! · 3 replies · +9 points

Really? All those logical fallacies, ad hominems, appeals to ridicule, bandwagon arguments, misrepresentation, guilt by association.... and the only thing you can specify is a spelling mistake?

13 years ago @ And another thing... - The New Politics, Part 27 · 0 replies · +3 points

It's not about the number of votes - it's about whether or not you end up in government, which we didn't and the LibDems did. Had we been in government and had broken election promises, we would deserve to pay the electoral price. I think the same rule should apply to the LibDems, don't you?

13 years ago @ And another thing... - A miserable little ele... · 0 replies · +3 points

And did the leader of the Labour Party describe AV as a "miserable little compromise"?

13 years ago @ And another thing... - Honesty about immigration · 0 replies · -1 points

No.

13 years ago @ And another thing... - Honesty about immigration · 3 replies · 0 points

Yeah, yeah, Stewart, you've been banging on about this for a while. So do I take it that you're now inclined to take the word of all former special adviser to Labour ministers? Or just the ones you already agree with?

13 years ago @ And another thing... - In praise of Tim Loughton · 2 replies · +1 points

Timbone, I am offended. I have never - never - used "would of" or "could of". In fact I deliberately corrected a commenter earlier on in this thread who had committed exactly that crime.

13 years ago @ And another thing... - In praise of Tim Loughton · 2 replies · +1 points

"Were that the case with every agency, why the need for the government to get all authoritarian about it? Why not just let them be?"

I'm surprised you don't rmember all of this, Stewart. What happened was that civil partnerships came into being. Catholic adoption agencies can still - and presumably do - place children with "single" male adoptive parents who aren't in a formal legal relationship with their partners. But since civil partnerships came in, those same agencies have decided not to allow children to be placed with them, given the publicly declared nature of that relationship.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with Tom Harris

People I'm following

Tom Harris