Itsallaguess wrote:If you (avconway) would kindly go and read my post again, you'll see that I am not commenting on the man or his actions.
Thank you, Itsallaguess. I don't think I've misread your post – you were expressing surprise that BnC should see reasons for defending Terrence Inglis.
itsallaguess wrote:What I am commenting on is BnC's defence of the man and his actions....
Quite so. That's exactly what I thought you were doing. Indeed you seemed to be “absolutely” astounded that there could be any defence at all.
I am on the other side of the fence – I am somewhat surprised that some can find a case for pillorying this man who seems (there is no evidence) to have caused no harm or nuisance to anybody, thus to me the question which arises is not: “Why should this man be defended?” but: “On what grounds should this man be pilloried?”