Pressure mounts on "Saint" Vince Cable

ninky_2

nickmason wrote: »

Quite seriously, I don't get it. I was wondering whether it really is the case that I am not allowed to express an opinion without it being declared as a campaigning activity, but surely that would be nonsense; and in any event it's not yet the "short campaign" where most of the controls kick in.There is some parallel in local planning issues where those with awareness of the facts typically aren't allowed to make judgements on them - it's just one of the things I'm hoping we will see the end of.

And well done, of course I had to rise to the bait and not duck out.:o

i think you should be allowed to express your opinion nick. but just financial advisors are meant to declare their status on here, i think paid up members of political parties should declare that status in their signature.

for the record, i am not and never have been a paid up member of a political party. and i have voted green before as well as labour.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

i think you should be allowed to express your opinion nick. but just financial advisors are meant to declare their status on here, i think paid up members of political parties should declare that status in their signature.

for the record, i am not and never have been a paid up member of a political party. and i have voted green before as well as labour.

He gives his rel name. People voting for him will know who he is. I really feel very conflicted about this. FWIW I have thought he would be sensible to reregister as ''fluffy bunny'' or some such and really admire him for not doing so.

I think the internet would be a far better place, in fact, if we used our real names for things like this. I feel ashamed to be a chicken over this. We all have ''agendas'' (what should the plural be for that?) or allegiances, or very strong beliefs we want others to ''get'', I would argue as someone with a job where you are able to reach millions in media then if we should know who nick is, your influence must be at least as great!

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

He gives his rel name.

I think I need to remind people that Nick required some assistance in being so open with his background.

He still hasn't thanked me for helping him to be so honest yet either. What a cheek! :rotfl:

Alan_Cross

It's quite funny to see the obvious Tory embarrassment at the way their so-called shadow chancellor is being shown up for the weak and clueless toff he is.

Does anyone seriously expect Osbourne to command respect in financial circles?

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I think I need to remind people that Nick required some assistance in being so open with his background.

He still hasn't thanked me for helping him to be so honest yet either. What a cheek! :rotfl:

Well, of you are so honest who are you?

edit: again...nick signed on with his own name I guess on his own. I also think its fair to point out I already knew who Nick was, living somewhat near him, but out of ''his'' area.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

He gives his rel name. People voting for him will know who he is. I really feel very conflicted about this. FWIW I have thought he would be sensible to reregister as ''fluffy bunny'' or some such and really admire him for not doing so.

I think the internet would be a far better place, in fact, if we used our real names for things like this. I feel ashamed to be a chicken over this. We all have agendas, I would argue as someone with a job where you are able to reach millions in media then if we should know who nick is, your influence must be at least as great!

i would have no problem with not being anonymous in certain contexts but as i post on other subjects and might want to post things of a personal nature than that is why i don't want to post my real name.

i don't necessarily want all the people i film knowing the immigration issues of my husband. or collegues knowing i had a miscarriage. just a couple of examples.

kabayiri

I'm confused.

I read the interview clip in the OP, and it seemed an example of plain straight forward answers to questions.

He won't rule out VAT increases because he knows they couldn't afford to.

It feels refreshingly honest to be truthful, and it's sad we don't get the same from other MPs.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

i would have no problem with not being anonymous in certain contexts but as i post on other subjects and might want to post things of a personal nature than that is why i don't want to post my real name.

i don't necessarily want all the people i film knowing the immigration issues of my husband. or collegues knowing i had a miscarriage. just a couple of examples.

Exactly for similar but different reasons I prefer to remain anonymous. My point is, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I'm embarrassed whenever this comes up that I have not yet had the courage o my convictions over this issue. Far from chastising you, or anyone else, who does exactly what we are advised to do on the internet, in keeping safe, I am only pointing out that the attitude of anonymity is inconsistently applied.

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I think I need to remind people that Nick required some assistance in being so open with his background.

He still hasn't thanked me for helping him to be so honest yet either. What a cheek! :rotfl:

Many thanks Sir Humphrey - I've decided to come back a little more robust, but still open as who I am, rather than hiding as "fluffy bunny". In fact it would probably have been Howard Roark - I think I did even go so far as to register the name..

To be honest, though, I didn't need some assistance from you - I had always used my name, and I think I'm the only Nick Mason who is a local councillor for instance. My umbrage was when you started asking whether I "was the same person you knew from Oxford, who therefore...." and followed it with suggestions that I had done something I hadn't, or slighted me by association. That was an invidious position for me to be in, where you could slight me and I could not respond. At the time I walked away because of the imbalance - these days I'm not so bothered!

nickmason

By the way - the only reason it's relevant is because I'm an elected councillor - in that I totally understand why people would be sensible to remain anonymous - I respect both LIR and Ninky's rights to do so, and indeed I think there's a lot of value in anonymity allowing things to be raised, the way they can't be in the pub (where anonymity doesn't exist) for instance. At risk of being sanctimonious again, I spend a lot of time trying to provide voice mechanisms for people, and the internet is a great way of doing it.

For my part, I don't think I can take the privilege of being a councillor without being accountable for it; and I try and play that distinction appropriately. It's only when that honesty is abused I get a bit defensive; I'd hope that people on here would treat me fairly.