MR Lord alleges I am a vitriolic and disillusioned malcontent and persistent purveyor of diatribes and depressing features. I am pleased Mr Lord didn't include the word "wrong" in his lexicon of literary abuse.
Mr Lord doesn't bother debating or refuting my letters. He goes straight for the head, with the blunderbuss of invective and derision.
It would appear that Mr Lord wants to incapacitate the messenger, rather than refute the message.
Has he forgotten free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy? Has he forgotten that "we the people," have an inalienable right to challenge and criticise that, which is done in our name, by those we elect to be our political representatives?
Is Mr Lord seeking to curtail that right, by wielding a literary blunderbuss, because it is embarrassing New Labour? Is he advocating that only opinions "friendly" towards New Labour should be aired?
Every letter written by myself and other "disillusioned malcontents" is there to be challenged or disproved. By responding, with the tawdry language of invective and derision, instead of reasoned argument, I believe Mr Lord has done local democracy - and perhaps New Labour - a great disservice.
Opinion is the very currency of democracy and, by apparently attempting to stifle its exchange, Mr Lord may have rendered Labour's already wobbly political compass even more unreliable.
How, without "disillusioned malcontents" will Mr Lord ever be capable of coxing his comrades back into our city's political mainstream?
N TAYLOR,
Worcester.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article