You keep missing the point that I am raising about scrutiny so nevermind. The truth is the personal attacks are based on the way you wrote your article. Its not just Hadleigh and Me that think that you are patronizing your electorate look at Monkeybot 5000 comment for further proof.

Sorry Hadleigh this is my last comment.

"Student Unions are not there to act as a little Student Nanny state"

I wish they were.

Rather than going personal in response, I went right down Hadleigh's points and fisked them, but I was basically pretty annoyed that he accused me of being contemptuous of my electorate; accordingly I did pick up on what he said about me, yes, but only in response.

There was no need to even question my motivations, let alone go off on one like that. He could have just said why he disagreed with what I wrote and why, but chose to attack me instead.

It was clearly not I who lowed the first blow.

On Labourhome I can't look for a moderator, because I AM the moderator. If I wanted, I could have just deleted his whole article, or changed it in the way he has changed my comment.

Scrutiny… no, I object to him assigning the worst motives to me when he has no reason to, he could just tackle the substance. And I object to him censoring my responses and changing their meaning, without asking my permission. It's all debate and free speech when it suits him. But now he's literally making it up.

But more importantly to me is the fact that your "no platform policy" was picked apart but all you did was claim foul from the "personal attacks". This is where I think you are whining because rather than focus on the issue at hand you seem to be putting your hands up looking for a moderator to go "look Hadleigh play fair". You can't even handle a blogger scrutinising you, how will you fare when in front of the media circus.

Bevan, that's also pretty low.

I'm up for election and someone is making personalised attacks on me. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond apart from arguing back.

Student Unions are not there to act as a little Student Nanny state. You cannot protect people from an opinion. I don’t see why people need protecting from somebody else’s opinion, the truth is if that person is not strong enough individually to stand up for themselves then there will always be a large number of people willing to step up to the plate and do it for them. If the BNP turn up to my SU then to be honest if I was one of the minorities you are thinking about I would want to sock it to them (so to speak). A debating hall is a safe environment and I’m sure an SU can prevent any violence against individuals on their campus.

This paragraph also is yet another example among many others of your distrust in democracy. You would rather just say they are wrong than justify that.

As I have commented elsewhere the article in response to Hadleigh was inadequate, you decribe it as Ad Hominem yet you continue to ignore the justification for No No platform policy that he brings up.

You declare that you are not patronizing, yet me as a reader and Hadleigh (actually I have shown your posts to about 10 people, they have all come to this conclusion independently) as a reader gets that message from your articles. Surely if it comes across as patronizing to so many people but you don’t mean it to, then you should think harder about how you convey your points.