Mr Kimmel, you are not too late to enter the debate.The point of my criticism of Huq was to call her to account in respect of statements she had made and issues put to her which she has ignored. She has not responded. They remain on the table. I note first you have little to say in defence of her by way of disputing the FACTS I adduced or arguments I made upon the basis of them.I shall deal with the few points you have made. 1. You write that Jess Phillips' statement regarding stabbing Corbyn “in the front, not the back" is what is called a turn of phrase, or a metaphor.Thank you for telling me that, but I already knew what a metaphor is. I can even recognise a Homeric simile when I come across one (which is not often these days). 2. It may be a metaphor, but it is a violent metaphor. I picked it out in the context of Johnson’s being accused of violent language by saying politicians were “traitors”. In comparison with his statement, which did not contain violent language, Phillips’ statement did. 3.You explain the metaphor. “Her statement indicates … that she would not talk about him behind his back …. but would square up to him to his face. Seems simple enough.”Do you really think anyone needed to have it explained? “Stabbing someone in the back” is so commonplace a phrase as to be a “dead metaphor”. To illustrate how dead metaphors can be revived, consider the WW2 favourite: “Get your finger out”. One could extend that and revive its original crudity by adding: “and put your **** in.” Phillips extends the dead metaphor of stabbing someone in the back by adding the thought of stabbing them in the front – and so revives the violence of the original comparison and reveals the bent of her imagination. 5. I notice you make no defence of Shah’s reference to the practice of putting tyres around people’s necks and setting light to them - nor of Huq’s failure to dissociate herself from it. 6. You are right. Phillips was critical of Corbyn and predicted what would happen were he not rejected. And so it has come to pass. I am sure being proved right will be a consolation for her in the face of catastrophe. 6. Your write: “It's best to take a long, hard look at each case when it happens before you speak, definitely.” I do and did. It is Huq who speaks and writes before she thinks as is exemplified in the examples I have given. 7. You are not sure how "failing to respond to the correspondence", equals condoning something. It doesn’t as blandly stated by you. Failing to respond to correspondence of itself might be put down to discourtesy or negligence. However, avoiding serious issues by doing so cannot. For example, when asked directly to condemn Shah for her outrageous anti-semitic posts, Huq’s failure to do so indicates that she is indifferent to the matter and her indifference to a matter so serious is reasonably interpreted as condoning remarks that any decent person would be eager to condemn. 8. To defend her, you write: “I imagine MPs get a ton of correspondence every day, screened by other people.”During the run-up to the election, Huq failed to provide an email address so that one could put serious issues to her. I sent my emails to her but also the local Labour Party and asked them to be passed on. What, I wonder, did the “screening” process involve? Seemingly, identifying correspondence too embarrassing in respect of her reputation for her even to acknowledge receipt of! Huq needs to be reminded that one of the fundamental obligations of a public servant is, according to the Seven Principles of Public Life, ACCOUNTABILTY: “Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.” She has failed the test. Finally, you assume that, because I disapprove of halal slaughter, I must also condemn “kosher practice”.I do.You continue: “Interestingly, the RSPCA note that in the UK 58% of halal meat is actually from pre-stunned cows.”Which means that 42 percent is not. Also, some of the “pre-stunned” animals are stunned only to make them manageable and regain consciousness before having their throats slit according to the Rupa recipe for the humane treatment of animals, based as it is on ignoring the evidence. Your view of the issue, Mr Kimmel? Don’t be shy.
Andrew Farmer ● 2302d