I am shocked that Iain Dale has used such language, it is nonsense to call people ‘whores’, if that is not their trade.

Poor woman is only trying to make a career for herself.

He has obviously got carried away with this blogging business.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

You know what? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that “whore” was not meant in a misogynist way. But an acceptable term to describe her? You have been making her out to be some kind of carpetbagger which is just cheap and nasty. And coming from someone who has actively pursued seats in seats from a VERY wide geographical area, quite hypocritical.

You know what by-election candidates have to put themselves through (more so than general election candidates). Aside from anything else, can’t you just accept this sort of nonsense does nothing except lower the whole tone of debate?

The point I think I was making was that I was clearly using the word whoring in the sense of touting. I was not using it in its sexual sense as you were no doubt aware. But even if I was, you seem to be unaware that there are also male whores, so how its use could be construed as sexist is beyond me.

So forgive me if I have a wry smile on my face when I see you accusing me of ratcheting up partisan mudslinging. That, from the master

As it happens, I have been having problems recently with getting email alerts of new comments (ever since I upgraded) but I normally check daily and comments get approved then.

But I have never seen a comment from you. Nor, as you can plainly see from this comment, do I moderate your comments. I’d ask you to take my word for it, but that clearly won’t be good enough. Nonetheless, it happens to be true.

You do seem to be obsessed with ratcheting up the partisan mudslinging at the moment. You’re prerogative I suppose, but it is dull.

If this class of defective thought is as important as you think, then perhaps you should (suggestion, not prescription) make the accusation with care and consideration, not just lob it willy nilly when you want to damage an enemy.

You devalue ideas about which you care deeply because you are so casual in invoking them. For example, the Northern working classes have been called “racist” so often as they struggled with the consequences of mass immigration, that many no longer care. They regard it (at best) as casual abuse designed only to shut them up. That perception has helped, not hindered, the BNP. Overuse the antibiotic, and it ceases to work.

“Whore” has many everyday uses as metaphor and simile, as you might have remembered if it had been used by a political ally. Used by Mr Dale, of course, it’s “sexism”. As I said, he uses such thought-substitutes himself, so is hoist by his own petard.

I found it almost as amusing as when he lobbed it at Michael White and “you too yah boo sucks” ensued. White was called (idiotically) a sexist and suddenly his accuser was a sexist too. My point is that this is about the level of thought that typically goes into the use of such words as “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobe” and “islamophobe”. Most of the time, they are no better than playground abuse and are registering as such with the man and woman in the street. That should be a problem to you. No?

I take it “thought grenade” is a corruption of thought police? I may have a problem with the policing of though, but I have no objection whatsoever for being accused of having explosive, easy to deploy thoughts.

I’m not calling for Iain Dale to be banned from calling a female candidate a whore, but what is wrong with pointing out that it is poisonous language and just plain impolite?

I have to say that I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard so-called libertarians criticise people employing their own freedom of speech when they choose to use it to criticise people for being bigoted and rude. It is as if “politically correct” language has some kind of magic power that all other language somehow lacks.

Why this blind spot? I genuinely don’t understand it.

I do wonder if Iain has checked out the Slander of Women Act 1891 (imputations of unchaste behaviour actionable without proof of special damage)

As a “non-US” liberal, I am perfectly happy to criticise sentiments and / or words that encourage prejudice. Do I want the state to suppress them? No. Do I occasionally see such criticisms bandied around unfairly? Yes. But neither is a case for ignoring the point.